Try reading this article from a prosecutor. LWOP = Life Without Parole.
I'm not a good enough theologian to even try to convince you of the moral propriety of the death penalty, but I would like to take a stab at the LWOP argument. It seems to me that it isn't enough to say that the people of California could have simply chosen to keep a killer like Tookie locked up forever. Getting rid of the death penalty means that we have to also consider the foreseeable consequences of guaranteeing criminals that they can kill as many innocent people as they want, for whatever reason at all, without even facing the theoretical possibility of placing their own lives at risk.
A few examples to make my point: Suppose we have a career criminal with a long record of violent felonies, what we in California would call a "three-striker", who knows that he will be sent to prison for the rest of his life if he is ever caught committing a new offense. When he goes to rob the local convenience store, he doesn't want to hurt anyone - he just wants the money. But he also knows that, as there is no death penalty, he will face the exact same punishment (life imprisonment) whether or not he kills the clerk, the only witness to his crime. He would be a fool not to do so. If he happens to bump into a police officer on the way out, he may as well kill him too - there is no extra charge, so to speak.
If we somehow manage to catch the "three-striker" and place him on trial, it will be in his best interest to sabatoge his own trial by killling witnesses, jurors, prosecutors or judges. After all, if we can't convict him, he goes free. (Remember that scene from the movie Traffic, where the druglord walks?) And even if we manage to successfully prosecute him for one of these new murders, he will still only face the same life sentence that he was sure to get in the first place.
If we do manage to put a murderer like Tookie away for life, he can then kill anyone he wants to - inside or out of prison - with complete impunity. What are we going to do to him - give him two life terms? In California, we presently have something like 30,000 inmates serving life terms (29,999 as of 12:01 AM!) Most of them have little or no prospect of ever being paroled. I would not like to be there on the day that they are told that they have been given a license to kill.
There's more. Once sentenced to LWOP, there's nothing to stop him from killing guards or other prisoners. What are you going to do, sentence him to 2 lives without parole?
Second, some people seem uneasy with the idea of punishment. I'm not. We as a socieity do it all the time, from fines for traffic violations through imprisonment for more serious offenses all the way to execution for the most extreme of crimes. Punishment isn't revenge. It's punishment and there's nothing wrong with that, IMO.
Current Events » in reply to For the period of time that a criminal is incarcerated or dead, he is deterred.
No, he isn't
The whole thread (41 posts)
- "Tookie" denied clemency.
- re: "Tookie" denied clemency.
- They are BEGGING for a riot!!!!
- Nonsense...
- Perhaps your central assumption is incorrect
- Can't imagine how to structure the study
- The cited study is available online...
- For the period of time that a criminal is incarcerated or dead, he is deterred.
- The cited study is available online...
- Can't imagine how to structure the study
- Perhaps your central assumption is incorrect
- It is just revenge....
- Now put this with the Richard Pryor article you posted earlier.
- Hey, Tom.... wake up!
