The single most powerful piece of writing I have read for a very long time

[User removed 4]

Not so much, no. Happy to admit that. Although I did say I didn't know enough about his own case to comment in-depth.

But I do still find some of his insights interesting and thought-provoking so glad the letter was shared. Even it, as it turns out, the bits about him not committing the murder apparently need to be taken with a healthy pinch of salt.

It is a difficult one. The individual appears to have been responsible for a terrible crime. An awful, premeditated and cold-blood crime which resulted in the death of an innocent person. He deserves to be punished.

But does that mean he is not equally able to offer valid insights into the failures of the American system for other people? I don't think so.

I suppose it is difficult to divorce the message from the messenger in many cases.

A very good reply to be fair.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

There have been cases in Uk where someone was hung who did not kill anyone. Derek Bently, for example, was found guilty of murder in the 50's and executed. He and his accomplice Chrhristopher Craig broke into a confectionery warehouse in Croydon and Crig shot and killed a policeman. Both were found guilty of murder but Craig was onl 16 so couldn't be sentenved to death. bentley was 19 and was hung, even though he didn't kill anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

It was one of the major causes of capital punishment being suspended shortly after and later abandoned.

Capital punishment is wrong on so many levels. But not in the US, it seems

 

[Triggaaar]

The US also use products produced by inmates to limit the amount of cheap imported products from Mexico, if you use slave labour you can compete with Mexicans.

You'd think they try and use products produced by inmates to save buying them from anywhere int he world, not just Mexico. I think I'm pretty far from being a fascist, but when it comes to dealing with prisoners, I'm suddenly not so sure. I think prisoners should work to produce something to put back into the system. But almost certainly not the way the US does. I wouldn't want it to be like slave labour. I'd want them to learn skills they could use outside of prison, and feel a sense of worth for what they'd done.

But does that mean he is not equally able to offer valid insights into the failures of the American system for other people? I don't think so.

I don't think anyone has suggested he shouldn't he should offer his opinion.

Reads like hypocritical bullshit.

Bullshits on about empathy...



But turns up with a knife premeditated and slits another mans throat.

No empathy however is expressed for the victim. Just moaning about how he's been done wrong.

I don't agree with you about much. If he wanted to preach about empathy, he could have talked a little about how it was for the victim in his last moments, and how it must have been, and still must be, for his family. And that bullshit about being the best father he could. Wow, perhaps he could have thought about his pregnant girlfriend and unborn child before embarking on such a cold a ruthless crime.

If I went out to rob someone armed with a knife and used it on him, I would not expect sympathy from anyone.

It was worse than that. The knife wasn't a backup plan, it was the plan. And to choose to do a recording session with the intended victim before slitting his throat is shockingly cold.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

It was one of the major causes of capital punishment being suspended shortly after and later abandoned.

Capital punishment is wrong on so many levels. But not in the US, it seems

I think you will find your view is in the minority though. If the government gave the people a free vote on whether to bring back the death penalty, on crimes like child rape, premeditated murder, terrrorism and the like, then it would be passed without a doubt in my opinion.

THe case of this thread, is the exact reason why I believe the death penalty, in his case, is correct. The only issue I have with it, is the crime was committed in 1998. So why is the **** still breathing and writing shit in 2014?!?

 

[casbom]

Having now read the letter in context of the background of his case, there does seem an undeniable irony in his comments about empathy considering he slit someone else's throat in order to steal from him.

I have to admit I took the original letter at face value perhaps too readily in terms of the individual's own case. Thanks to the other poster for providing the context of the person's crimes.

Glad the original letter was shared though as it does raise some important issues over the American system as a whole.

Yes I'm with you here, no doubt belongs behind bars as the murder wasn't exactly an accident etc, but the death penalty? No. If you read some of the death row inmates on that link and you could justifiably say there are some that deserve to die. Example of one I read about he broke into a house and killed the grandmother, then killed her 4yr old grand daughter for crying, then ejaculated over her body.

 

[lost in london]

Does the US really make a profit on their prisoners?

I don't think it's a profit as such, but it's the size of the industry that surrounds it, and the number of Americans who are employed in the system, that would make it, politically, extremely difficult to reduce in size. A prison (run by a private company) setting up in a town would recruit dozens if not hundreds of low skilled local workers; reducing the number of prisoners would force some prisons to close, crippling communities that depend on that prison.

A politician seeking to reducing imprisonment rates would not only be seen as being soft on crime (not popular in a country where even the nominally left leaning Democrats are arguably more to the right than the Conservative party here), but would also be exposed to extensive lobbying from a powerful prison industry.

An interesting article here:

http://www.thenation.com/prison-profiteers

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think you will find your view is in the minority though. If the government gave the people a free vote on whether to bring back the death penalty, on crimes like child rape, premeditated murder, terrrorism and the like, then it would be passed without a doubt in my opinion.

THe case of this thread, is the exact reason why I believe the death penalty, in his case, is correct. The only issue I have with it, is the crime was committed in 1998. So why is the **** still breathing and writing shit in 2014?!?

I don't think it would. Mainly for statistics such as in the US since 1978 138 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death have later been exonerated. That is 138 people, later found to be not guilty who would have been 'murdered' by the state were it not for science, and digging into their case.

Polls are often conducted by papers and the media straight after a particularly harrowing case, however my opinion is that it is unlikely the people of this country would vote for capital punishment if it came to it.

He's still breathing and writing because capital punishment is incredibly expensive and time consuming. If it wasn't, that would be the above 138 people and probably more dead when they shouldn't be.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

I think you will find your view is in the minority though. If the government gave the people a free vote on whether to bring back the death penalty, on crimes like child rape, premeditated murder, terrrorism and the like, then it would be passed without a doubt in my opinion.

THe case of this thread, is the exact reason why I believe the death penalty, in his case, is correct. The only issue I have with it, is the crime was committed in 1998. So why is the **** still breathing and writing shit in 2014?!?

Just because a majority of people might vote for the death penalty - which I very much doubt they would - doesn't make it right.

Lord Denning was the top judge some years ago and it was his writing about the death penalty which finally convinced me it was wrong. He said the death penalty has three functions - deterrence, punishment and protection of the public.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent. Most murderers only commit one murder, usually in the heat of the moment, and it wouldn't be a deterrent to them. More odious murderers like serial killers, child killers, terrorists etc wouldn't see it as a deterrent either. For it to be a deterrent there would need to be a real likelihood in the mind of the murder that he or she will be caught. I I simply don't believe they would think that.

Punishment. This is arguably the strongest of the three reasons as it certainly punishes. But so does life imprisonment and arguably that's a worse punishment if you are incarerated in prison for a long time. But the Americans confuse things by keeping people in prison for a long time and then execute them. In my opinion, the death penalty is less about punishment than retribution.

Before you ask, of course if the victime was someone I loved or knew then obviously I would feel completely different but I'm trying to be disspasionate here. In the 21st century we should be able to come up with better and more effective punishements for peopl. Punishment and rehabilition if possible is what we should be aiming for. A bit difficult to rehabilitate people you have executed. Even people who were quilty of the crime, let alone someone wrongly committed.

And protection of the public simply doesn't stand up. As I've said most murderers are one offs and are no danger to the public. Possibly less dangerous than someone who hasn't murdered, at least they will have personal experience of what happens to you if you allow yourself to lose control.

And for the other murders who might or definitely be a danger? Society can be protected just as well by putting in prison.

I really do not see what capital punishement acheives, other than to make some members of society feel better. And in my book that's a pretty lousy reason. I simply can't see one positive reason for the death penalty.

 

[father_and_son]

A real rollercoaster of a thread. The initial letter reads as an insightful view from a man so embeded in a system he hates that he can speak confidently of where it's wrong (He's been inside longer than out!)

However, as details of his personal circumstances are added, the sympathy (not empathy) I felt disappeared quickly. I am no saint, but I have never walked into a room intending to kill someone, and however much I may hate an individual I don't think I will ever seriously wish them dead, never mind plan to do it myself.

I have always felt conflicted on the death penalty. On one hand some people will never be rehabilitated and, as a constant drain on society, do not deserve to live. However, society has a whole has a duty to be better than its worst member and so many of the types of people mentioned in other posts, I believe should be spared. Murderers, paedophiles and others should not be executed if there is a chance that they will learn to be a positive member of society. Its not the crime that should determine the sentence, but the remorse and restitution.

Under my personal belief system, I think he should die. Not because he committed a premeditated murder (the final blow does not matter, the intent was there) alongside another felony, because because he refuses to atone for what he did by denying culpability.

 

[father_and_son]

I don't think it would. Mainly for statistics such as in the US since 1978 138 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death have later been exonerated. That is 138 people, later found to be not guilty who would have been 'murdered' by the state were it not for science, and digging into their case.

Polls are often conducted by papers and the media straight after a particularly harrowing case, however my opinion is that it is unlikely the people of this country would vote for capital punishment if it came to it.

He's still breathing and writing because capital punishment is incredibly expensive and time consuming. If it wasn't, that would be the above 138 people and probably more dead when they shouldn't be.

138 cases where "reasonable doubt" was introduced at a retrial. That does not in any way mean that all 138 were innocent of the crimes they were sentenced for, merely that someone was able to provide a set of alternative explanations which could have happened instead.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

None of those involved in the Tate / LaBianca killings were executed, and those murders were about as bad as you can get. US law is an unending mix of contradictions.

 

[Buzzer]

Just because a majority of people might vote for the death penalty - which I very much doubt they would - doesn't make it right.

I disagree with you on both points there - and I do so as someone who also is against the death penalty in any form and for any crime. I suspect that if there was a referendum on the subject it would be an incredibly close run thing and maybe even swaying towards the pro-brigade.

Is the death penalty right? There's no definitive yes or no to that, it depends on the moral code of the person asking it. You and I think it isn't and could probably debate with the pro-brigade until hell freezes over on the relative rights and wrongs but if the majority of our society think that it is right and acceptable then, living in a democracy, we have to say that it is right for our society because that's what it wants.

 

[lawros left foot]

Timothy Evans, Derek Bently, both executed by the state in our names, both found, if not innocent then not culpable of murder. Stefan Kiszko, the Guildford four, the Birmingham six, to name a few all would have been executed for crimes they were innocent of, had we still been practicing the medieval punishment of a life for a life. And, lets face ot , it doesn't work. America has a massive murder rate per headof ppopulation, compared to any European nation. Nobody goes out to cpmmit a crime thinking they will be caught, so the detterent argument is a non starter really

 

[Biscuit]

So he didn't kill anyone! He only slit the guys throat and stole his hard earned belongings.. Sorry but while some good points are raised in that letter, many others are ignored. In his defense he can only talk about black/white culture as he saw it in the 80's.

Nowadays racism is not as prevalent, and not as wide spread. While individual attitudes to vary from city to city (The West Coast of the USA has always been more forward thinking than the South) you can't blanket over these issues in a few hundred words. Racism still exists but it's being tackled more and more and the conversation is happening all over the world.

Yes the death penalty is abhorrent. Yes there is a lot more society could do for young black people, but the world is improving and attitudes are changing too. I think the biggest divide society faces today isn't racial, but the growing contempt between different classes.

Onwards and upwards,

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

Timothy Evans, Derek Bently, both executed by the state in our names, both found, if not innocent then not culpable of murder. Stefan Kiszko, the Guildford four, the Birmingham six, to name a few all would have been executed for crimes they were innocent of, had we still been practicing the medieval punishment of a life for a life. And, lets face ot , it doesn't work. America has a massive murder rate per headof ppopulation, compared to any European nation. Nobody goes out to cpmmit a crime thinking they will be caught, so the detterent argument is a non starter really

You've hit the nail on the head about deterrence. For a deterrent to work the perportator of the crime needs to believe there is a reasonably chance they will get caught. Small time criminals may take the chance knowing that punishment is likely to be fairly light but I don't believe serious criminals believe they will be caught. So any penalty, no matter how severe, is not a deterrent.

Timothy Evans and Derek Bentley are different. Evans was definitely wrongly convicted, Christie was the killer. So society failed Evans and that's a powerful argument against the death penalty. If only one person is wrongly convicted then that's a massive argument against the death penalty.

But Bentley wasn't wrongly convicted. morally wrongly I agree, but under the law of the day he was correctly executed (I can't believe I just wrote that!). There would have been less fuss if Craig had been over 18, he would certainly have been executed. Under the law he was exept from the death penalty. And under the law Bently was equally guilty of murder. Only the sentences were different. It was the law that was wrong, in Bentley's case it was applied correctly, but the bad law was changed later.

Ironic really, that a correctly executed person was more instrumental in getting a bad law was than someone incorrectly executed.

And I'm sorry about using the word correct or incorrect, that's not the right word, but I'm trying to make a point here.

 

[Creaky]

I disagree with you on both points there - and I do so as someone who also is against the death penalty in any form and for any crime. I suspect that if there was a referendum on the subject it would be an incredibly close run thing and maybe even swaying towards the pro-brigade.

Is the death penalty right? There's no definitive yes or no to that, it depends on the moral code of the person asking it. You and I think it isn't and could probably debate with the pro-brigade until hell freezes over on the relative rights and wrongs but if the majority of our society think that it is right and acceptable then, living in a democracy, we have to say that it is right for our society because that's what it wants.

Not convinced of that argument!

I may be wrong but if there were a referendum on whether every individual in the UK should receive a Christmas gift from the Exchequer of £5,000 the majority of people would vote in favour - or at least they would until the result of doing so became apparent!

 

[Buzzer]

Not convinced of that argument!

I may be wrong but if there were a referendum on whether every individual in the UK should receive a Christmas gift from the Exchequer of £5,000 the majority of people would vote in favour - or at least they would until the result of doing so became apparent!

Don't be ridiculous - number one, it's a specious argument that says nothing about the morality of the majority of a country - your question appeals to people's greed, not about social justice. 2 completely different matters and definitely not comparable, number two, would most people vote for that? I think most people (and definitely not just you) are clever enough to know that giving away £30 billion pounds is just madness.

Try again.

 

[Mowgli37]

Yeah , fancy wanting to execute someone who cold bloodedly slit someones throat for a few thousand dollars, how backward eh ?

At the time of my original post I'd only read his letter.

 

[Creaky]

Don't be ridiculous - number one, it's a specious argument that says nothing about the morality of the majority of a country - your question appeals to people's greed, not about social justice. 2 completely different matters and definitely not comparable, number two, would most people vote for that? I think most people (and definitely not just you) are clever enough to know that giving away £30 billion pounds is just madness.

Try again.

Of course the two are comparible - both options pander to vices - one to greed the other to revenge.

You say giving away £30 billion would be financial madness, and I'd agree - others would say reintroducing the death penalty would be moral madness and I'd agree with them.

I was arguing against the premise that because a majority in a democracy may want a particular thing that makes it 'right' for that society - it demonstrably doesn't.

 

[Buzzer]

And I would agree that re-introducing the death penalty is moral madness but others as sane, as clever, just as morally upright take opposite views to us. They would argue that it isn't simply revenge, Cadiz Seagull's quotes from Lord Denning absolutely nail the reasons for doing so and it's nothing quite so simplistic as how you want to paint it.

Your argument that 'just because a majority in a democracy think something is right doesn't necessarily make it right' doesn't demonstrate anything other than your own views on the subject and your insistence that your view is the only right view. By its very definition if the majority in any democratic society hold a particular view and that view is the one that holds sway in law then it has to be right for that society. Views can and do change but at that moment that is the 'right' view.