Comments on: Why Texas Needs The Death Penalty

By: Michael Martin

Michael Martin — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:39:17 +0000

I’m not against the death penalty but in my opinion they should give something back to humanity. How about testing these people instead of animals who did absolutely nothing. What better results would you get on cancer study on humans than actually using humans as the subject. Lets face it, prison does not rehabilitate it only serves to increase one’s self deviance and violence. Lets do something positive.

By: ChristineR

ChristineR — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:11:44 +0000

You know, I’m pretty super liberal and have always been on the fence w/ the death penalty but after reading this I know that some people’s light deserves to be extinguished… in the public square, preferably.

By: Patty

Patty — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:12:17 +0000

The death penalty is not a deterrent because the people it’s meant to deter cannot and do not read or watch the news. They murder people.

By: harvey lacey

harvey lacey — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:21:52 +0000

Hmmmm, I’ve always assumed Glenn was as mature, maybe even more so, than myself, I’m sixty one and no longer counting.

I guess I was wrong because Glenn sounded just like the guyals and gals over on the Wylie View (google it). Sad, sad, sad.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:44:15 +0000

Glenn,
I don’t think very many people (though I’m sure there are some) would use THIS case to support an argument AGAINST the death penalty. People are more prone to put on their anti-death penalty hat in cases where there is some evidence that the perpetrator may not in fact be guilty or simply where there is some level of doubt surrounding the facts of the case.

Couple that with your previous concession that it is not a deterrent, and there you have it.

By: radio_babylon

radio_babylon — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:10:08 +0000

@simon: you are my twin, separated at birth. or an illicit clone, one or the other. i have long maintained that the most effective deterrent for the most severe of offenses would be to apply punishment to the perpetrator AND immediate family up and down the tree (children and parents), with an exemption being granted if the family reports and turns over the perp immediately upon discovery of a crime. it would produce the ACTIVE deterrent you describe, whereby it is in everyone’s interest to make damn sure their family stays in line (and turning over the ones that dont, hopefully BEFORE they beat a man to death). maintaining discipline on a brood of unruly hellspawn would suddenly jump to the top of most parent’s list of priorities (where it properly belongs).

@daniel: that is, without a doubt, the most incredible idea ever. id buy a ticket for that. seriously.

By: JB

JB — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:02:48 +0000

Nevertheless, Baba is morally correct when he states “The state has no right to take a life because the state does not give life. that is up to God” (or natural law, or Lord Darwin, whatever). The state, as described by Lincoln, is the people, by the people, and for the people. The only entity that is ever justified in taking life is (insert your higher power here).

However, my mother did used to tell me “I brought you into this world, and I can take you right back out.” …. so there might be something to that as well.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:36:05 +0000

What’s the point of debating the death penalty? What Glenn advocates is unbridled brutality carried out with sadistic glee. Oh, they’d think twice about being punks if I could hang them upside down from a tree in my front yard and sell tickets to beat them in the privates with a tire-iron! Excuse me for being “politically incorrect,” which is invariably synonymous with “morally brave,” but that would be awesome!! Especially if we could douse their eyes and nostrils with jalapeno juice!!

Great Criminy Jeebus on a hot dog bun.

By: RAB

RAB — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:35:22 +0000

Dear Bethany:

If you’re referring to the Willingham case, no, I don’t think it’s likely that we killed an innocent man.

With respect to the Innocence Project, it’s clearly laudable and should be pursued vigorously. But I would note that what has exonerated those wrongfully convicted is new DNA technology that is standard procedure in current murder cases, so the risk of wrongful convictions is diminishing.

We’ve had plenty of scrutiny, and I think that those administering the punishment feel the full weight of the responsibility already.

To extend Gentle Shane’s distinction between justice and law, and to provide a new gloss on an old saying: law deferred is justice denied.

By: Obama's Seat

Obama's Seat — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:26:44 +0000

Coincidentally, NRO’s Corner blog is having this same debate, and this bit by Mark Krikorian is food for thought:

There’s a defense of the death penalty I’ve not seen mentioned, though I’m sure someone has addressed it somewhere.

To start with the punch line, it seems to me the existence and imposition of the death penalty is a condition of the legitimacy of the state. What, after all, was the reason for the original social contract? Not the theoretical contracts that Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau discussed, but the actual ones all over the world where family and clan groups at different points in history first submitted themselves to the state?

It was to avenge murderers in a targeted, orderly, proportional, rule-based fashion, thus avoiding the disorder of private justice. Before that, and still in places with weak or non-existent states, families or clans would get justice on their own, so that when one of theirs was killed by a neighboring clan, they’d get the boys together and kill one of theirs.

The problem with this, of course, is that it leads to endless cycles of vendetta or feuds, and doesn’t even necessarily result in the right person being punished. So people surrendered the right to avenge their kinsmen’s deaths in exchange for a promise by the state to avenge the deaths for them.

As Jason said, when a someone’s loved one is murdered, it’s natural (and always will be, given the permanence of human nature) to insist that the murderer pays for his crime with his life. When the state, as a matter of policy, refuses under any circumstances to execute murderers, it welshes on the deal that brought the state into existence in the first place and undermines its legitmacy.