Did Aileen Wuornos deserve to be executed?

[Suddenly]

This is perhaps an area you should do some reading about, since it's clear you've got some serious misunderstandings. The total cost of the trial and appeals in a death penalty case is much greater than that in a case with a lesser penalty, since the incentives to pursue every possible avenue of appeal are infinitely greater and there are always defence lawyers willing to do the work for free for ideological reasons.

Usually the state winds up paying defense attorneys, and many states have a much higher standard for those appointed to death cases and pays them more than a lawyer in a typical felony case. So it is a bit worse than you put it, not only do they raise issue after issue to both try to reverse sentence or conviction, but also to stall to keep a client alive. It is all on the state's dime.

 

[Suddenly]

However he got life for killing I believe ten or eleven people. Kansas had no death penalty at the time his crimes were committed. Dennis Rader is in protective custody for the rest of his life. This means he has to stay in a small cell and perhaps this measure of justice is sufficient. He has TV and books to read. He has letters and magazines. Is this enough punishment?

Given his age I'd speculate that his average lifespan would be roughly the same either way.

Plus, with a death penalty there is always hope as up until the needle there are appeals being filed, clemency being wished for, and so on.

With life inprisonment with no chance of parole, once the appeals are finished there is nothing to hope for. Some prisoners seem to be able to make a life of what is left them, they follow the rules and find a way to stay busy, but most feel nothing but misery at what they are denied, the torture of every second knowing what their lives are not and will never be.

 

[ponderingturtle]

After a fair trial, where the person has been found...
- not guilty, or
- probably guilty, or
- certainly guilty without any scientific doubt
... shooting dead the murderer, who was found to be certainly guilty, is much cheaper than giving him/her a free endless holiday in a comfortable state hotel.

So what about all those who have been exonerated from death row? Of course we would never know, what is the point in making sure that the guy you killed did it? Think of the egg on your face when it turns out he was innocent?

I know we kill the proscutor then.

 

[JJM 777]

Lawsuits can be very expensive, but really if the evidence is there, you simply don't need to handle the case more than once or maximum twice. If the state wants to waste its money, OK they are free to do with their money what they want. Even then, selling the organs of the convicted criminal for life-sustaining purposes should make revenues comparable to the losses in lawyer costs.

The recidivism rate for sex offenders within three years of release is 2.5% to 5% in the USA and UK.

And this, I assume, was intended as an "informed" opinion. My previous information came from a Scandinavian police yearbook 1995. But let us talk about United States and a more modern period:

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

This linked page (a project of U.S. Dept of Justice) explains that only 32% of sex offences are reported to police, so official recidivism rates can be remarkably lower than recidivism rates are in reality.

Even with this notion, the officially reported (and thus probably underestimated) recidivism rates of child molesters are 52%, and rapists 39%, within 25 years from release from prison. (Why you chose to give statistics of three years only, I will not ask.)

 

[JJM 777]

So what about all those who have been exonerated from death row?

Accidents do happen everywhere in life. Driving a car includes the risk of someone being killed in a crash with our car, which would have not happened if we never started driving a car. Feel guilty? I don't.

With "certainly guilty, beyond any scientific doubt" I mean something like a surveillance camera recording the act, or 100 people witnessing an assassination on the street, or other circumstances that don't leave place for doubt.

Not something like "we are not sure who it was, but we must punish somebody".

 

[Cainkane1]

So what about all those who have been exonerated from death row? Of course we would never know, what is the point in making sure that the guy you killed did it? Think of the egg on your face when it turns out he was innocent?

I know we kill the proscutor then.

I agree. Still Dennis and Aileen were guilty beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. However in the interests of saving an innocent life I favor (reluctantly) life over the death penalty.

 

[Cainkane1]

Accidents do happen everywhere in life. Driving a car includes the risk of someone being killed in a crash with our car, which would have not happened if we never started driving a car. Feel guilty? I don't.

With "certainly guilty, beyond any scientific doubt" I mean something like a surveillance camera recording the act, or 100 people witnessing an assassination on the street, or other circumstances that don't leave place for doubt.

Not something like "we are not sure who it was, but we must punish somebody".

I agree. Does Finland have a death penalty? Do you have a personal ax to grind? I don't blame the family of victims for wanting the death penalty for the murder of a beloved friend or family member.

 

[Suddenly]

Lawsuits can be very expensive, but really if the evidence is there, you simply don't need to handle the case more than once or maximum twice. If the state wants to waste its money, OK they are free to do with their money what they want. Even then, selling the organs of the convicted criminal for life-sustaining purposes should make revenues comparable to the losses in lawyer costs.

Yeah, what we really need is a government with a financial interest in killing people. That will work out just fine.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Even if you have your videotape or multitude of witnesses this isn't going to tell you whether the person was insane, was so intoxicated he could not form specific intent making the crime a non-capital offense, whether the person was in the heat of passion, and a bunch of other things that would make the killing a non-capital offense.

In US law, a crime is made up of an act and a mental state. While a videotape can give some clues as to the latter, it will almost itself never be proof beyond all possible doubt as the very nature of these kinds of issues isn't as black and white as "who pulled the trigger."

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree. Still Dennis and Aileen were guilty beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. However in the interests of saving an innocent life I favor (reluctantly) life over the death penalty.

That fits with what I think, the issue was he was attacking due process and thinking we should just kill anyone as soon as they are convicted.

Given that what half of Illinois death row was falsely convicted and there are major issues with how scientific a lot of forensic evidence really is, I would have not trust the system enough to kill people with out a very rigorous testing process.

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah, what we really need is a government with a financial interest in killing people. That will work out just fine.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Even if you have your videotape or multitude of witnesses this isn't going to tell you whether the person was insane, was so intoxicated he could not form specific intent making the crime a non-capital offense, whether the person was in the heat of passion, and a bunch of other things that would make the killing a non-capital offense.

In US law, a crime is made up of an act and a mental state. While a videotape can give some clues as to the latter, it will almost itself never be proof beyond all possible doubt as the very nature of these kinds of issues isn't as black and white as "who pulled the trigger."

And under U.S. law, there are allowances for such circumstances. A person's mental state during the commission of a crime as a mitigating circumstance can be established or argued preceding/during a trial.

But personally speaking, once it has been definitively determined a person committed a horrific crime, their mental state at the time is a hair not worth splitting.

 

[JJM 777]

Does Finland have a death penalty?

No, high-ranking politicians (just possibly with some links to Italian mafia) have managed to include this in the conditions for membership in European Union: if your country uses death penalty, it cannot be member of European Union. So death penalty is abolished in all EU member countries, which I find quite handy and comfortable for organized criminals.

You need to get some person killed? Just ensure that some person becomes heavily indebted to you. In drug business this won't be difficult to arrange. Then send your ganstas to tell him that he can choose between being beaten to death here and now, or serving a kamikaze hitman mission, which probably will give 5 years cake in a comfortable prison, with television and Internet and all what you ever need. Just ensure that you take a lot of drugs before the mission, to get minimum punishment.

Because of the mafia factor, and the obvious ease of causing someone to become desperately indebted in the drug circles, I feel that not using a death penalty is much more risky for the society than using a death penalty.

once it has been definitively determined a person committed a horrific crime, their mental state at the time is a hair not worth splitting.

Hear, hear!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

And this, I assume, was intended as an "informed" opinion. My previous information came from a Scandinavian police yearbook 1995. But let us talk about United States and a more modern period:

http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

This linked page (a project of U.S. Dept of Justice) explains that only 32% of sex offences are reported to police, so official recidivism rates can be remarkably lower than recidivism rates are in reality.

They could be. Alternatively, recidivists might re-offend until they get caught while the majority of ex-convicts do not re-offend at all. The conclusion that a low reporting rate means a higher recidivism rate does not necessarily follow.

Even with this notion, the officially reported (and thus probably underestimated) recidivism rates of child molesters are 52%, and rapists 39%, within 25 years from release from prison. (Why you chose to give statistics of three years only, I will not ask.)

From the article you linked to, which goes into some detail about the fact that these numbers are of limited reliability:

Incest offenders ranged between 4 and 10 percent.
Rapists ranged between 7 and 35 percent.
Child molesters with female victims ranged between 10 and 29 percent.
Child molesters with male victims ranged between 13 and 40 percent.
Exhibitionists ranged between 41 and 71 percent.

Bear in mind that the measurement usually used is not "did they rape again?" but "did they get convicted of a sex offence again?". So for example a rapist who later gets arrested for public nudity counts as a recidivist just as much as a streaker who later gets arrested for rape, and it looks like the exhibitionists are wildly skewing the statistics.

It looks to me like you're cherry-picking results with high recidivism rates and claiming them as representative of general behaviour, while ignoring the other studies that show much lower recidivism rates.

 

[JJM 777]

To make a long story short, I support death penalty for proven killers, and a forbidden city for criminals who have seriously violated the human rights of others with uncommon arrogance. Don't like the forbidden city, move abroad if any country wants to receive you.

 

[theprestige]

What's the difference between what you said and what I said? Either way it boils down to deciding that it's easier to kill them than to keep them alive, except that you're trying to hide the connection between "easier" and "cheaper".

Fair enough. It's my belief, in principle, that society is better off materially (as well as morally) with dead monsters than with live ones--especially ones kept alive at society's expense.

The problem with that argument, as you probably know, is that it's just factually false. It's cheaper (and hence easier in the only important sense) to keep someone locked up for life than it is to execute them.

The reason it's more expensive for our society to kill monsters than to keep them alive is because there's no broad agreement that they--and we--are better off with them dead. The dissenters are permitted to throw up costly impediments to summarily executing monsters. The result is the grotesque situation we have today, where it is extremely expensive to keep monsters alive, and even more expensive to kill them.

I would say that the expense of of killing Aileen Wuornos is almost entirely artificial and unnecessary. I don't see any reason why it should be so costly, and as a counter-argument it is only valid as long as our society keeps its current due process and criminal justice policies.

What about you? Are you arguing that Aileen Wuornos should be kept alive only because it's cheaper under the current system? Or, if the system were adjusted to make it cheaper to kill her would you still be opposed to doing so?

 

[quadraginta]

Fair enough. It's my belief, in principle, that society is better off materially (as well as morally) with dead monsters than with live ones--especially ones kept alive at society's expense.


The reason it's more expensive for our society to kill monsters than to keep them alive is because there's no broad agreement that they--and we--are better off with them dead. The dissenters are permitted to throw up costly impediments to summarily executing monsters. The result is the grotesque situation we have today, where it is extremely expensive to keep monsters alive, and even more expensive to kill them.

I would say that the expense of of killing Aileen Wuornos is almost entirely artificial and unnecessary. I don't see any reason why it should be so costly, and as a counter-argument it is only valid as long as our society keeps its current due process and criminal justice policies.

What about you? Are you arguing that Aileen Wuornos should be kept alive only because it's cheaper under the current system? Or, if the system were adjusted to make it cheaper to kill her would you still be opposed to doing so?

How many innocent people is it okay to execute in the effort to insure the deaths of the actually guilty? You may express your personal opinion on this either in absolute terms or as a percentage.

(No need for elaborate explanations (i.e., waffling) or extreme precision. Any integer value will do.)
​

What amount of money do you think is appropriate to spend in an effort to prevent or lessen the incidence of the execution of the innocent ... on a per person basis? (Express in USD.)

 

[theprestige]

How many innocent people is it okay to execute in the effort to insure the deaths of the actually guilty? You may express your personal opinion on this either in absolute terms or as a percentage.

(No need for elaborate explanations (i.e., waffling) or extreme precision. Any integer value will do.)
​

What amount of money do you think is appropriate to spend in an effort to prevent or lessen the incidence of the execution of the innocent ... on a per person basis? (Express in USD.)

I'm confused: Is there any doubt that Aileen Wuornos committed the crimes she's accused of, or did you just bring out a straw man large enough to incinerate Edward Woodward?

To be honest, I haven't given it much thought, on the assumption that it's possible to create a criminal justice system that adequately safeguards the possibly innocent while still relieving society of the burden of monster-maintenance.

That said, I figure one in ten thousand is probably a good starting point for discussion. I'm afraid I have no idea what kinds of dollar amounts we're talking here, so I'll happily defer to you: What's your "golden ratio" and ideal funding level?

Also, be honest, please: If you were presented with a criminal justice system that adequately safeguards the innocent (at whatever level you consider acceptable) and also provided for prompt execution of monsters at less cost than keeping them alive within the system, would you approve of such executions, or would you still object for some other reason?

 

[quadraginta]

I'm confused: Is there any doubt that Aileen Wuornos committed the crimes she's accused of, or did you just bring out a straw man large enough to incinerate Edward Woodward?

Thread title concerns whether or not Wuornos deserves to be executed. Not whether she was guilty. Perhaps the distinction escapes you.

You, on the other hand brought up ...

The dissenters are permitted to throw up costly impediments to summarily executing monsters.

My response concerned your intimation (straw man?) that "costly impediments" have no substantive use.

Even in the presence of actual guilt, our justice admits to extenuating aspects surrounding the commission of crimes which recognize a valid reason to temper sentencing.

So whether Wuornos is actually guilty or instead might only be deserving of a sentence less harsh than death (point of thread, remember?) my questions to you re. your post remain equally valid.

To be honest, I haven't given it much thought, on the assumption that it's possible to create a criminal justice system that adequately safeguards the possibly innocent while still relieving society of the burden of monster-maintenance.

That said, I figure one in ten thousand is probably a good starting point for discussion. I'm afraid I have no idea what kinds of dollar amounts we're talking here, so I'll happily defer to you: What's your "golden ratio" and ideal funding level?

My starting point is zero. The idea that fatal collateral damage is acceptable in our exercise of justice, not in the field or 'heat of battle' but in our courtrooms, especially when the reasoning behind that acceptance is based on cost-cutting, is more than abhorrent. It is depraved.

We can't reverse that sentence after it is carried out. We can't compensate that victim of miscarriage of justice.

Also, be honest, please: If you were presented with a criminal justice system that adequately safeguards the innocent (at whatever level you consider acceptable) and also provided for prompt execution of monsters at less cost than keeping them alive within the system, would you approve of such executions, or would you still object for some other reason?

If "adequately" equals "perfectly", and that level is zero, then yes, I would approve.

I have no qualms ... moral, ethical, cultural, social, or whatever ... about the use of capital punishment per se.

I have a fundamental refusal to sanction a system which would permit, or even pursue the death of someone possibly undeserving in my name, as my proxy, when the only argument against not doing so is to save a few bucks.

The fact that most of the people so supportive of such cost-cutting are fully supportive of locking up kids for decades for smoking a little cannabis just makes the concept even more repugnant, and showcases the basic hypocrisy involved.

Reasonable people in this thread, addressing the OP with reasonable points of discussion have brought up perfectly valid questions concerning the appropriateness of Wuornos' sentence in particular.

You also said ...

It's my belief, in principle, that society is better off materially (as well as morally) with dead monsters than with live ones

On the face of it I cannot take issue with that statement as it is presented.

However, when you pronounce yourself willing to condone some quantity of the state murder of innocents as a necessary consequence of an unnecessary cost saving measure I have to ask myself if we recognize all the monsters in our midst, or in ourselves.

 

[JJM 777]

I have a fundamental refusal to sanction a system which would permit, or even pursue the death of someone possibly undeserving in my name, as my proxy, when the only argument against not doing so is to save a few bucks.

Uhh ehh?

You will be happy to know that the Japanese superfast and super expensive Shinkanzen train system has transported billionas and billions of passengers, without ever in its history experiencing one single accident where any person would have been killed.

Private car traffic, on the contrary, kills more people than death penalties and drug abuse and mafia and the Taleban and Al Qaeda combined.

I am sure that you also support a total ban on cigarette sales, because also cigarettes kill more innocent people than death penalties.

My point is that you pretend to be hyper-sensitive to the idea that some person in the world might possibly die in accidental circumstances. That will certainly happen anyway, and we cannot let such a thought cripple our entire civilization.

As long as the risk of being accidentally executed is lower than the risk of being accidentally killed in car or flight traffic (or from lung cancer from cigarettes), it should be OK for anyone who politically supports the legality of car or flight traffic (or cigarette sales).

 

[Foolmewunz]

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5972935/3RD-LD-Tokaido-Shinkansen-bullet.html

JJM 777, if you open your post with an untruth, people tend to want to know if they should bother reading anything else you've written.

 

[quadraginta]

Uhh ehh?

You will be happy to know that the Japanese superfast and super expensive Shinkanzen train system has transported billionas and billions of passengers, without ever in its history experiencing one single accident where any person would have been killed.

Private car traffic, on the contrary, kills more people than death penalties and drug abuse and mafia and the Taleban and Al Qaeda combined.

I am sure that you also support a total ban on cigarette sales, because also cigarettes kill more innocent people than death penalties.

My point is that you pretend to be hyper-sensitive to the idea that some person in the world might possibly die in accidental circumstances. That will certainly happen anyway, and we cannot let such a thought cripple our entire civilization.

As long as the risk of being accidentally executed is lower than the risk of being accidentally killed in car or flight traffic (or from lung cancer from cigarettes), it should be OK for anyone who politically supports the legality of car or flight traffic (or cigarette sales).

Your point is nonsensical, and irrelevant, as are your examples. I suspect you know this.

Your examples mostly share the element of choice. I know when I get on an airplane or in a car that the possibility of injury exists. The choice is mine to risk it. The remainder remove that element, because they result from the actions of others.

When we choose to execute someone then we become the others.

More significant is your use of the word "accidentally". (A word which deserves a thread all its own.)

There is nothing "accidental" about an execution. The main point I stressed, which you chose to gloss over, is that it is not even needful. If you can explain to me why the only feasible method for us to insure the public safety through our process of justice is to execute the convicted while accepting that innocents will also die then I will agree with you. I think that you will have difficulty doing this.

The only honest defense for capital punishment is its value to us as retribution. Its efficacy as a deterrent is debatable, and I think that even you will agree that it is not of much use for rehabilitation.

Now I don't have a problem with the concept of retribution. At the very least I can empathize with it. But there is no rational justification for using death as retribution, especially for the crime of killing, when we might as a society commit the exact same crime in the process.

As I responded to the earlier poster, I don't find the death penalty intrinsically repugnant. I do deplore the idea of applying a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" to such a final solution when all evidence indicates that such a standard fails. Beyond any doubt is the only standard which can provide substance to our "justice".