Ohio executes a murderer

Am I really supposed to feel sorry for this?

I do believe we should not seek to make the execution ghastly, painful, or horrible and that we should do everything possible to make it quick.  I do believe capital punishment is appropriate for a case like this – the equally ghastly rape and brutal murder of an innocent woman.  It is not about revenge, it is not about changing the past – it is about justice being meted out.  So this horrible excuse for a human being should…what?  Be kept alive for the rest of his life?  Bernie Madoff didn’t murder anyone and he got life in prison.  So if we give a cold-blooded and brutal murderer the same sentence, what we are saying is that taking a human life with forethought and malice is no worse than stealing people’s money or committing a fraud?  I think not.

Fine – be humane about the execution (which is far more than what he did for his victim).  But the fact that he is dead is the right thing.

I don’t believe that is complicated at all Russell Miller.  Our justice system metes out all other forms of punishment and penalty for all crimes on behalf of our society as a whole.

There is no such thing in our country as “justice” from Coast to Coast, from Canada to Mexico that is consistent. Each jury, each trial, each State has an entirely different view of “justice” the one of the other. So the argument that there is something “just” here falls entirely flat to me. Justice according to whom? According to what measure? What if life in prison with no parole is more punishing?

But my larger question has to do with the residue left on the hands of everyone involved. I agree with Brian G. Fay that this “feels” wrong. I agree with Anne-Marie Clark that it is a bizarre “business” this business of executing people who have committed crimes we cannot wrap our heads around and think that someone an eye has been had for an eye, a tooth for a tooth I agree with Russell Miller that perhaps the question is not about murder of the murderer but about the society that still has this as a solution on its plate.

We gave them that right Russell Miller in the establishment of the justice system in the first place.  This is our society created by our system of laws that we vote on and approve.  Every society has some system of justice and punishment.

Same result Marva Dasef – they are going to be dead.  Are you really saying that it is not OK for the justice system to put him to death but fine to let the animals in the prison common room take him out?  Wow.

Daniel Bobke Um, yeah. Jury of his peers and all. Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison. My ex-father-in-law child molester was tossed off the 2nd tier. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. How Charles Manson stays alive, I have no idea. 

The JUSTICE SYSTEM tends to execute a whole lot of innocent people because they’re black. I don’t think we should be doing that. If we don’t know for sure if a person is guilty (juries are fallible–look at OJ), then we, as a society, don’t have any business executing anybody. The prisoners are more able to discern real guilt.

Giselle Minoli After studying the thinking of many great minds who have tackled the myriad legal and philosophical issues along the way to concluding the State-sanctioned execution, I am convinced that our system is incapable of definitively reaching a truly just result that justifies terminating human life.

We’re a long way from resolving many seriously troubling issues in the current system. The vast majority of the issues come down to a standard that at bottom is “we conclude that we’ve beaten this issue enough to be pretty much sure, kind of, and finality is a valuable thing.” Seriously, I’m not kidding that valuing finality is a justification.

This is not a just system. And there never will be one, because we can’t overcome the problem of not being 100% fair. Therefore, the People cannot legitimately kill humans in its custody and call it justice.

I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life… Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate.

–Governor George Ryan of Illinois, January 2000, in declaring a moratorium on executions in his state, after the 13th Illinois death row inmate had been released from prison due to wrongful conviction. In the same time period, 12 others had been executed.

The current governor of Oregon—a former ER doctor—put in place a moratorium on executions when he took office. He was governor once before, and when he won election and came back into office, he said he’d been troubled by it in his last stint as governor and had decided a moratorium was the right thing to do.

Well said, Giselle Minoli !

Giselle Minoli Watching 20-something law students (I was older) consider exactly those kinds of issues you mention shrug and say, um yeah, I think that’s enough of a good rule, a bright enough line (18?! It’s literally just a number, says the mom of 3 at or just over age 18.) … without the kind of inner turmoil you just described feeling… was horrifying to me. If I or any of my fellow humans will pay with my life, that is just not the process due a human being.

Yes, I could kill to save a life in a moment of crisis—that kind of thing. But that humans are so, as a rule, capable of NOT letting the implications of their thoughts and conclusions penetrate them, to me says that we cannot allow execution.

Russell Miller True, this is hard stuff. But we all have the duty to struggle with how to be and act justly. But also we must know when to stop before we kill unjustly, even if it feels like the person didn’t “pay” enough. The legal system done right is supposed to protect us from the playing-God types, but it’s not perfect and never will be—because the system, the State, is us.

+Russell Miller If it had been my pregnant wife he’d killed. Id be happy and glad that he suffered, a small eye for an eye.

Anne-Marie Clark I confess I don’t understand “the law” when it comes to prosecuting for the death of someone. I realize that isn’t part of the trial…they have to be proven guilty and then it proceeds from there. But I cannot help but think that, as you suggest, there is some kind of shut down when this process occurs. Is it taking refuge in laws and thinking they will get an individual out of having to grapple with this…for instance…I’m just “doing my job,” or is it that the law has bled out of it any “system” for grappling with this? I mean, I wonder if it isn’t even a matter of the law, but rather a matter of what people “naturally” believe. I know people (such as myself) who have always been against Capital Punishment…and I know people who have always been for it. I”m not sure what to make of the possibility that a belief one way or the other is inherent in our individual DNA…

I will be clear – this is not about revenge.  I agree that revenge should not be part of a justice system.

We are not God – that is very true.  However, we must, to the best of our ability determine what is right and what is wrong – and what the penalty is for the wrong.  It is a basic human condition to want some measure of justice – to be rewarded for what is done right and for wrong to be punished.  It is from this basic human condition that the action of revenge comes.  We want the person who wronged us (corporately or individually) to somehow pay for what they did.  Revenge gets handed out with emotion and that is where it becomes unjust.

Our symbol of justice is a a lady with scales in one hand, a sword in the other, and a blindfold on (a symbol that dates back 500 years or so).  The blindfold symbolizes impartiality and justice meted out with reason and not affected by things outside of what happened and what is right and wrong.  We MUST define what “justice” is because an orderly and livable society requires it.  While your sense of justice may be different than mine, there is no doubt we have one individually.  Regardless of whether you think it is OK to put a murderer in jail for life, banish them (whatever that actually looks like), or put them to death, it must reconcile with some sense of justice.  Some countries under Islamic law chop off the hands of thieves.  While our national sense of justice would never allow that, their society does as they have an entirely different sense of justice.  The point is that they have one but there is no universal justice definition that the entire world will agree on.

We do rely on God in some measure for determining that sense of justice as a society.  Much of our justice system is rooted in Judeo-Christian moral belief and many Biblical references can be found for our societal sense of justice – including the penalty of death for murder.  Ultimately, we will not know if our definition was correct or complete until we have that chat with God and He lets us know.  Until then, we can only do as well as human beings can do.  Our society does still embrace the death penalty as acceptable in most places – 32 out of the 50 states have a death penalty currently, including the great liberal state of California where I live (even with Governor Moonbeam elected 3 times in this crazy place!).  I guess the message is clear – if you are going to murder someone, pick one of the 18 states where there is not a death penalty.

The interesting thing Giselle Minoli is that you could not ever serve on a jury where the death penalty is a possibility as the outcome (although you don’t have to worry in New York).  Part of the vetting process of picking a jury is that all members of the jury have to be able to accept the death penalty as a possible outcome of the trial.

I do not involve myself in vengence and violence. I may have a year ago, but not today. My stance is simply this:

Such a gross and Heinous person and act, can not be allowed to go with out proper consequence.

There are few issues that have a gulf the same size as the one between those that support capital punishment and those that do not.

Elisa T I don’t know for sure, but I don’t believe that one single case of proven innocence after an execution has ever actually happened.

One has to consider that legal innocence and actual innocence are often very different (O.J. Simpson is a great example).  There was a case in, ironically enough, Illinois in the early 80s that is equally shocking on the other side of the Grisham coin.  This guy murdered a whole family, including a mother and both her children.  He was convicted and sentenced to death.  His lawyers argued later that the police improperly obtained some evidence and the appeals court – get this – WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT HE WAS GUILTY OF THE MURDERS – vacated the verdict.  They could not retry him without that evidence, so he was set free.  A few years later he strangled a manager of a Burger King in another Illinois town.

I would rather that the guy had fried in the electric chair with improperly obtained evidence than be called legally innocent, set free and killed again.  I am betting the family of that second murder victim would agree.

Marva Dasef I cannot imagine a greater Hell on Earth than spending life in a maximum security prison. Very Dante-esque, if you ask me. Perhaps there are those who would prefer to be released, via execution, from such a place? I think we had a case like that this past summer…but I could be remembering that incorrectly.

However bad it might be in prison, you are still breathing, you are still getting visits from your family and friends, you can send and receive letters, you can surf the Internet, and watch TV.  These are just a few of life’s little pleasures that the murderer decided should be taken from the person(s) they killed.  Still not justice.

Daniel Bobke Very good and true points Daniel!

I think you are presumptuous Russell Miller – I am not making that view yours.  I was expressing my sense of justice and that to me, life in prison is not justice served for a cold-blooded murder.  As I pointed out earlier, these things are not decided at an individual level – they are a societal decision.  32 of 50 states have said that death is justice for murder.  One has two options – move to one of those 18 states or make a move to change the laws where you are.

Would I have an issue serving on a death penalty case?  Absolutely not.  I could make that decision and sleep well.

Stephen Jacobsin Thank you for that comment. May I be brutal and ask a horrid question (I really don’t have an answer to it, so it’s not a test)…but, as you say, DNA test is unquestionable, man confesses, a jury finds him guilty, his appeals are denied over and over and over again, he is considered a “monster….” why the wait? Why not just do him in immediately? Why the false display of humanity? I suggest that the reason we don’t is because the level of our doubt is very high.

As for not understanding the depravity of our society, I think you are wrong. I think we all understand it. I have posted (one such post got almost 400 comments…it was a limited post) on the Sandy Hook nightmare, and there are many others that reflect on the depravity of not just our society, but of societies elsewhere (Pakistan and a little girl named Malala). Again, however, I don’t think that is the issue. One of my favorite plays (not the movie, because I think it was skewed) was A Few Good Men, which asks the question you are raising – people need to be protected from monsters and someone has to do that work and we are in denial of that reality too.

The dilemma (for me) is that we are not consistent about it from Judge to Judge, Jury to Jury, State to State. And people who sit on juries carry with them their own beliefs. No, I don’t think it’s possible to negotiate with Al Queda. But that reality does not negate the fact that we have been at war for 13 years now chasing after that particular monster and it is not going to stop.

No, I have never sat down face-to-face with a killer and I hope I never have to. I, do, however, respect that you have. Still, I can tell from your response above that you, too, question the when, the how, the why of it. So are we.

If you look at the history of the death penalty, the period of time between conviction and execution has consistently grown longer.  This is not because we have a high level of doubt – it is because we have a legal system that chokes itself on arcane procedural rules and endless appeal possibilities on technicalities.  Thomas Jefferson actually wrote that executions should be almost immediate after conviction.

Things vary from state to state because we are a republic and the states have tremendous latitude to govern themselves within their boundaries.  That is true with every aspect of our legal system and that will never change unless you want to toss aside the Constitution.

Giselle Minoli I appreciate your comments and I respect that obviously you are plagued by the idea bad things happen and we as a society of many good people are struggling with a way to “punish” those who openly choose to dismiss what society has decided is ok.  As was stated earlier…32 states in America support and enforce the death penalty.  Does that by itself make it “right” no, but the majority of us believe it is justifiable when a capital crime has been committed and there is no reasonable doubt.  Does that mean no one on death row is innocent.. probably not.  So what do we do, keep housing thousands and thousands of bad people forever?  What are the statistics for reoffenders in our country who have been released on probation?  Rapist, child molesters, etc.  I certainly don’t think they all need to be put to death but obviously prison is not a good enough deterrent for many.  I don’t pretend to have all the answers but in this case I’m sorry but I believe justice was done. 

BTW, I too hope you never find yourself face to face with a true killer.  Even when they are shackled and behind bars it is a very intimidating thing to know if given the chance they would enjoy watching you die.  Have a great night.

But it did not happen thus Daniel Bobke. I would protect someone I love (or myself) with every ounce of me. That doesn’t make it automatic for me to know what is “right” in this instance…

I don’t quite understand the reluctance to make a determination of what is right…we all have to do this every day.  Not everything is super-clear, but there are things that are clear as crystal.  The very underpinnings of our society are sunk into the bedrock of making judgments on right and wrong.  We MUST make a choice.

Ohio chose and they are right!  Good night.

You all know where I stand – and Arthur LeCuyer I think you would benefit by reading the comments.  There are some good arguments there.

I do not believe it is wrong – it is very right and just.  I hope those that are on the fence really think it through using the blindfold that Lady Justice wears and not let emotion overtake.

And I have read that at one time in China, if not still done, a criminal is executed and the family charged for the cost of the bullet used to execute – but that is not what this post is about. I would ask of someone who is against the death penalty: and what is appropriate punishment for a Hitler or a Pol Pot or an Eichmann. I freely admit I do not have “the” answer let alone “a” answer but I do admit I do not feel sad this particular monster is gone. Whether I “should” feel sad is a different issue.

Daniel Bobke is way off about the state of the death penalty legal process and his derogatory comments about the lawyers’ role in it. If you feel even a little the way Daniel Bobke just expressed about how to “clean up” and hurry along the execution process, educate yourself about the unique and specialized legal system that handles US death penalty cases. The lawyers nowadays are top experts, certified and highly specialized in ensuring due process in death penalty cases, often from national legal defense non-profits that specialize in these cases. And no lawyer gets into death penalty law to get wealthy. Some day you or someone you love may need one.

Every court system in the US is seriously short on money to run, and every case takes too long. Executing people is not the place to start cutting legal corners so we can save time or money.

Giselle Minoli I thought the original 1951 black and white film with Michael Rennie and Sam Jagged both wonderful and terrifying while the remake with Keanu Reeves for all the spectacular special effects was merely blah. Supposedly one argument about the existence of inter galactic aliens is they would be more advanced and civilized then us but when it comes to executing a killer be it a individual or a planet I am not always sure that more advanced and more civilized or more just mean the same thing. I once read a great sci fi story about a society that sent its criminals back in time to before life exists but I digress

No one said to cut corners Anne-Marie Clark-just clean it up. My mouth has plenty of words – I don’t need someone else’s. The reasons the court system has money problems are many…that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to mitigate logjams.

BTW – lawyers as a group earn every derogatory thought, statement, and joke. There are good and honest lawyers – just not enough of them. I always found it fitting and humorous that the film “The Devil’s Advocate” placed Satan in our world as a high-powered attorney. Of course – all my opinion.

Daniel Bobke Now, now. You can’t both argue that 1) lawyers are icky and the legal system is logjammed (your word) and 2) we should quit waffling already and get on with executing people after they’ve been through enough of said process in 1) for you. You can’t have it both ways. 😉

Again Anne-Marie Clark-not what I said. There are reasonable precautions and procedures that should be played out – not 10 to 20 years worth. That is a distinct injustice to the families and friends of the victims.

If anything requires reflection, it is the reality that the US is one of the remaining countries to have a death penalty. We are conflicted about many things – we don’t want to get rid of the death penalty, nor do we want to control guns, nor do we want to curb obesity and diabetes and sugar consumption, nor do we want to acknowledge the peril we’ve done to our environment, nor do we want to acknowledge how poisonous GMO foods are, nor do we want to acknowledge the great divide between executive and “normal” employee pay. But I digress. It’s late and I’m free-associating. Frankly, I think our conflicts about a lot of things are all “of a piece/peace,” Anne-Marie Clark. I appreciate your perspective given your study of the law. No, I do not think all lawyers are bad. Shakespeare gave them a bad rap ages ago and it stuck…

I will tell you one area I think we need reform and it would seriously cut down on the load on our system.  We should have a loser pays system to curb frivolous lawsuits.  There are plenty of attorneys out there looking to play the game of lawsuit lottery on behalf of clients with spurious claims.  That is one place to start – I am sure there are others.  The mechanism of “loser pays” may need to be modified and I am sure there are issues to work through, but there is one place to start.  BTW – I never said that all lawyers are bad.  My experience is that too many of them are.

I agree that ours is one of the best systems out there – it doesn’t mean we can’t improve it and that we shouldn’t try.

Giselle Minoli We are a country founded on individual freedom, so the idea of somehow controlling people’s access to sugar or using some sort of ridiculous law like the one Bloomberg tried in NYC regarding large soft drinks flies in the face of individual freedom.  If you want to be a fat diabetic, it is not my place to step in.  We have enough nanny-state problems.  Jeff Rowes of the Institute for Justice gave a great statement: “America was conceived as a sea of liberty with islands of government power. We’re now a sea of government power with ever-shrinking islands of liberty.” 

With that I say goodnight as I have children to herd in the right direction…if one can actually say that there is such a thing as a “right” direction…

Daniel Bobke Death penalty cases are criminal law. The loser-pays thing is civil lawsuits. Different worlds. Besides, execution is the ultimate “loser pays,” wouldn’t you say?

Good morning, dear Giselle! Death sentence in the USA, seems like an extremely primary thing, as you know: for instance -a person was murdered, killed, and another one must be found guilty and punished.

This is manicheist: the killer is also a person, and must be punished, but we must think of his “reabilitation”.

America is a very agressive society,and not a gentle one. An adolescent country, as a spanish philosopher called it, when he was visiting the States, when Franco ended the spanish civil war.

America, is a contradictory country which is a good thing because it means that you have individual freedom.

Here in Portugal, everyone wants to be “gentle”, amiable, and we were the first ones to abolish the death penalty. As a result, we can’t punished anyone: “Oh! He robed a bank?! Oh, poor guy! He is not ok!! Poor guy! Oh, they don’t have maners? Oh poor students! This is also idiot!

So, we are not a frontal country, and nobody wants to search what is true…

But America will change, and abolish the death penalty in all its states. Your country is a democracy, and that is such a marvellous thing! You also believe that true exists, and you fight for it!!

Here nobody believes in Justice, we have wonderful laws, but do subjective that all the meanings are possible. I have a case on court for 4 years…

I wish you a lovely day, dear Giselle! :))

Grazie Giselle Minoli per questo post che testimonia il valore delle persone che sono contro la pena di morte, in qualsiasi modo venga praticata. Grazie per aver rinnovato la speranza che la ragione possa presto affermarsi sulle tenebre di una giustizia così infinitamente crudele.

I feel very similar thoughts to yours, Giselle Minoli 

I remain torn on this issue. Is it really more compassionate to let someone rot in a cell where they are likely to be abused by fellow inmates until a guard turns their back and allows them to hang themselves to end the pain? If resources were infinite, the idea of trying to rehabilitate people or find them a way to give back to the society they violated is lovely. But as resources are not infinite, would resources not be better spent rehabilitating the homeless, or disrupting the gang violence and poverty cycles for the children who have not already gone down the path of such extreme violation?

On the other hand, if murderers were rational actors it seems any penalty – banishment, jail, death – would be a sufficient deterrent, but apparently it is not. The justice system often attempts to siphon off those psychologically or neurologically impaired from the death row system, leaving those deemed rationally sound yet utterly failing to show remorse or the capacity for rehabilitation. I’ve not yet in my life heard what sounds like anywhere near an ideal answer for what society would best do with such individuals.

the only reason we execute and make prison awful is to punish…. to give pain to another… to cause harm… 

and use the excuse that he or she already did harm so its ok for us to do the same….

…

when we grow up….eventually…grow away from this 2 year old tit for tat… maybe in another 1000 years… we will imprison only to keep safe… and we will make that alternate restrained lifestyle as comfortable and productive as possible…

When you have lost your compassion and respect for human life then you are no better than the people that committed these crimes.

Buongiorno dora chiabov…I will respond in English so everyone can read it! I don’t know that I’m brave for having the view that I have, but because it is such a volatile subject perhaps I’m brave for posting about it publicly! It’s easy to come under attack about subjects such as this. But I don’t know what my choice is…given that it was a rather public event, even though it was not witnessed by the public, if you know what I mean.

This morning I woke up to several comments above, including yours, that suggest a conversation about what is going on underneath the death penalty and execution is really what we should be focusing on.

Fundamentally I suppose I view the necessity of the death penalty – and carrying it out – as a great failure of our society. As deborah rabbit white Cara Evangelista and Ana Cristina Simões Vilar have pointed out so articulately, people who commit such crimes are not, how shall I say it, living harmoniously with the rest of us. There are serious mental health issues here and, No, we are not a nation that has empathy or even any understanding really of how to deal with those issues.

The last great frontier of science is perhaps understanding the brain, and it will be an issue somewhere down the line when we are able to identify people who are likely to commit crimes in the future exactly how to “disarm” them, so to speak, so that they do not harm anyone.

Daniel Bobke I don’t want to get into an argument with you about “sugar” per se, but if you think that our unbridled access to and use of this poisonous little substance is what you call “freedom,” then I beg to differ. I beg to differ because I don’t think the average American has spent any time pondering the definition of “freedom” vs. the definition of “liberty” vs. the definition of “right” vs. the definition of “privilege” vs. the definition of “honor” vs. the definition of “legal” vs. the definition of “ethical.” They don’t because this is America, and we are raised her to believe that the definition of “freedom” is the “right” to do “whatever we want” and sadly that is the way most people live their lives.

But guess what? The man who committed murder and was executed yesterday also believed that he could do whatever he wanted…and he did. So too, the fellow who killed all those children and teachers at Sandy Hook. And the young fellow who murdered so many people in an Aurora theatre. And Virginia Tech. And, years ago, the Texas School book Depository. Such acts are also the result of definitions of freedom where no sense whatsoever of connectedness to the rest of the society in which one lives comes into play.

Yes Alexander Schulte Yes Chris Woodcock Yes deborah rabbit white…we need to address the underlying causes for this behavior and deal with that. Daniel Bobke I live in a family of doctors and surgeons and the amount of money it is “costing” us in skyrocketing medical costs because so many people have diseases as a result of poor health (clearly you don’t believe everyone has free will…else we would all be law abiding citizens) is staggering.

I’m sorry, but what I personally believe is the true definition of freedom has little to do with what I personally want to do, and everything to do with how my actions and behavior affect other people. In this way, Yes, I do hold everyone who thinks there should be no gun control, responsible for the access to guns that mentally ill people have. We have to step outside of our own neat little definitions of personal wants in order to live in a society. Some people cannot do that. What…we are now going to execute them all?

Good Lord Elisa T. Once again, the United States reigns…how very long our list is…and this proves Anne-Marie Clark’s point Daniel Bobke that we in fact need 20 years of long appeals because that is often how long it takes to set right a wrongful accusation, arrest, incarceration and death sentence. Woe be unto all of us for sanctioning the executions of innocent people so we can tell ourselves we have rid the world of another dangerous individual…

Ah…it is a film with Tom Cruise, were the police can guess ( using people with special gifts) thoughts. The central police headquarters could control people, and when someone was thinking in killing, the police could enter in the house and arrest the killer. After that, the killer would be in a special place, “frozen”. The story is more complicated, the original idea was to erradicate crime, but the project was manipulated by the narcisistic hunger for power from one of the original leaders of the project.My colegues at school, they like to show these movies to their students, when they teach, Ethic and Politics…

I think that this film, isn’t a good one…

I don’t think this should be protocol but I am fine with what happened to him.  If you are pumped that full of midazolam you will feel nothing.  Pretty sure when I had a 5 hour surgery on my leg I don’t remember any of the cutting or pain.   He sodomized a pregnant woman and then proceeded to kill her and her child.   No matter what you do in your life there is no way to rehabilitate/make up for that. 

For what it’s worth to any or all of you, even the case of how to try the Boston Marathon Bomber is full of conflict. Read about that conflict here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/23/us-usa-explosions-boston-idUSBRE98M0KE20130923 Anne-Marie Clark!

Eric Weber Religion quite aside, I also believe it is, fundamentally, a spiritual issue…which is a vastly different thing than religion or law. Spirituality is the place that requires (I know you know this) each of us to determine for ourselves the course of our legacy, our actions. It is all too easy for Americans to trot out our Constitution when defending belief systems that are, all these many years later, questionable. The trotting comes from being easily let off the hook. For years it was legal to separate whites from blacks. It is still legal in some countries to circumcise women, and in other countries to beat them or kill them for “looking at” a man. It has been, variously, legal to bind women’s feet, to allow children of incomprehensibly young age to work as slaves, and, speaking of which, it was legal to have slaves in this country not so very long ago.

If we never question our behavior, if we never ask deeply of ourselves as individuals what is the right course of action, then none of those practices would change.

Thankfully there is a conversation about this…and I appreciate your part in it.

Just yesterday, an important US Court of Appeals decision on the issues of finality and truth-seeking in the remedies available to a (probably) innocent man convicted of and who had served 9 years for attempted murder:

http://abovethelaw.com/2014/01/second-circuit-did-something-incredible-yesterday-if-you-care-about-the-rights-of-the-accused/

Christopher Johnson your comment illustrates why I ask the question about what, exactly, is our definition of “justice.” We do not live in the Dark Ages. We are 200+ years into our evolution as a country. We have a dictionary. I don’t believe the words “justice,” “punishment,” and “revenge,” have anywhere near the same meanings, the same implications. Yet they have taken on eerily similar contexts when it comes to applying a punishment that we think is fair and reasonable (two characteristics applied to the term “justice,” that we think is right, that we think is appropriate. I can count on the fingers of one hand the people I have met in my life who I think are wise enough to even take on making these decisions.

The ease with which some people sanction, in the name of “justice” taking another person’s life, no matter the gravity of their crime boggles my mind.

I free-associate to the dinner table when a little girl or boy asks their Daddy about capital punishment and the answer to a young and and vulnerable and still forming mind and soul comes back “They got what they deserved.” Wow. How do those children go forth into the world with THAT belief system firmly imprinted on their brains? Not easy will their future path be.

Well, now that the Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, Jr., announced to day that the Death Penalty will be sought in the case of the Boston Marathon Bomber…here we go again however many months from now the gruesome trial begins. I am prepared for hordes of people to cite the difference in the number of victims, and the host of other arguments in favor of that decision. But there is nothing that can turn my head against this bizarre statement in the Times:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who had the final say on whether to authorize prosecutors to seek the death penalty, has said he personally opposes capital punishment, but he has authorized its use many times.

How does one do that? How does someone have a profoundly committed personal stand, which they summarily dismiss willy nilly? Clearly Holder does not oppose capital punishment. And that reality is why I posted this…we are deeply conflicted about what to do and how to handle these cases. Sadly I fear it will come down to numbers – the number of victims – because parsing it in other terms is so very difficult.

Yet, I am still left with the question: How will it shift things? Will it prevent such a thing happening again? And, perhaps ultimately, what will the retribution be? Because there will be retribution.

Perhaps at the Olympics, which is my fear. The link to the NY Times article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/us/boston-marathon-bombing-case.html?hp

While I understand your argument Anne-Marie Clark in this case it strikes me as wildly manipulative…sort of like, if they get the plea of guilty, then they get to say “Kiddinnnngggggg!” I can’t see that happening. This is too serious. Can you? Really? Particularly weeks down the road when so many people cry for blood? I mean we put McVeigh to death…so it isn’t like there isn’t a precedent…

Did McVeigh plead Guilty Anne-Marie Clark?

Thank you Anne-Marie Clark…but now I’m sort of curious about the Federal control of the Boston Bomber case and the fact that Massachusetts doesn’t believe in the Death Penalty and how that all works…It’s not as though there is a dividing line between Federal officers who were killed and regular citizens…or people from all over. So, intractably, if he pleas guilty you believe the death penalty will automatically be off the table…

I would bet there would be a different case, no matter the cost, were it left in the hands of Bostonians Anne-Marie Clark. Thank you for that explanation…

Anne-Marie Clark it’s really fascinating. I am aware of this (not this particular article, but others) and in fact posted something about “forgiveness” (being spared the death penalty) by the victim’s family as being a powerful antidote to our seemingly frequent thirst for revenge. It is a cultural spiritual journey this…there is no way around it. Thank you for sharing that link for everyone here.

Anne-Marie Clark just directed me toward Susan Stone’s post about Washington State’s Governor announcing that there would be no more State Executions on his watch. I thought I would include the link to the article in the Times here as a footnote to this conversation, in which Governor Inslee says:

There are too many flaws in the system. And when the ultimate decision is death, there is too much at stake to accept an imperfect system. With my action today, I expect Washington State will join a growing national conversation about capital punishment,” Mr. Inslee said on Tuesday. He noted that since the state’s current capital punishment laws were enacted in 1981, more than half of the 32 death sentences imposed in Washington had been overturned. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/washington-governor-jay-inslee-suspends-death-penalty.html?hpw&rref=us

Thank you Susan Stone and Anne-Marie Clark!