The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Jared Loughner - A Plea for Mercy & Honorable Justice
The Ender
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
As no doubt everyone is aware by now, Loughner is the man who fired about 20-30 rounds into a political rally in Tucson, nearly killing Representative Giffords (if you're interested in her condition, I got off of the telephone with one of her spokespeople this afternoon; she's stable, and goodness willing, she'll retain near full functionality and be on her feet in a year. The things that've been done with emergency brain surgery just since 2000 is absolutely awe striking) and murdering 5 bystanders (including a 9 year old). The discussion surrounding the rhetoric that may or may not have built up to the shootings is very interesting to me, but I'm not interested in discussing it in here - I want to broach something that I think will not otherwise be discussed until it's too late (or almost too late):
If Loughner is convicted on his current charges (and it's ludicrous to think that he won't be), he'll almost certainly be sent to sit on death row (this has been mentioned, in passing, several times now already by the Arizona authorities, and the heat of the moment rhetoric is spreading throughout the blogosphere about what sort of unkind retributions should be laid upon the murderer). Now, this man has just demonstrated that he's an incredible hazard to everyone around him (whether actually schizophrenic or not) and I think he should be segregated from the public for the rest of his life as such, but killing him won't bring any of his victims back to life, and this practice of exacting public revenge on criminals must stop. I'd prefer that we leave the death toll where it is.
If you live in the United States, and especially if you live in Arizona, I'm at your feet right now: petition your state, and let your representatives (even if - especially if you're sure they won't listen to you anyway) know that you do not want to see Loughner killed for what he did on Saturday. Punished & incarcerated, yes - executed? Unthinkable (...And I know you guys already know this, but don't call Gifford's office for anything other than to express condolences. It's, obviously, way to soon to begin lobbying in Tucson itself - but if there's no effort effort to lobby on Loughner's behalf right away, this will be forgotten about and left up to the ugly & expensive appeals process).
If Loughner is convicted on his current charges (and it's ludicrous to think that he won't be), he'll almost certainly be sent to sit on death row (this has been mentioned, in passing, several times now already by the Arizona authorities, and the heat of the moment rhetoric is spreading throughout the blogosphere about what sort of unkind retributions should be laid upon the murderer). Now, this man has just demonstrated that he's an incredible hazard to everyone around him (whether actually schizophrenic or not) and I think he should be segregated from the public for the rest of his life as such, but killing him won't bring any of his victims back to life, and this practice of exacting public revenge on criminals must stop. I'd prefer that we leave the death toll where it is.
If you live in the United States, and especially if you live in Arizona, I'm at your feet right now: petition your state, and let your representatives (even if - especially if you're sure they won't listen to you anyway) know that you do not want to see Loughner killed for what he did on Saturday. Punished & incarcerated, yes - executed? Unthinkable (...And I know you guys already know this, but don't call Gifford's office for anything other than to express condolences. It's, obviously, way to soon to begin lobbying in Tucson itself - but if there's no effort effort to lobby on Loughner's behalf right away, this will be forgotten about and left up to the ugly & expensive appeals process).
With Love and Courage
The Ender on
0
Posts
Given the very cut-and-dried nature of his case, however, this probably means putting him to death. Which I'm not too torn up about.
Mind you, I'm not proposing that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment in the context of equitable retaliation for said crimes. Statistics prove that the death penalty, especially in cases of mental illness and impulsive acts, has no real deterrent effect. But I do think that when matters are so clear, as they are in this specific case, giving death to the (eventually) convicted meets the optimal desired condition in regards to the ensured protection and stability of society.
I know, so I'm rooting for the situation that produces maximum utility.
I wouldn't mind the system changing a bit though to reduce access to the appeals process in such obvious cases like this.
I'll definitely be satisfied by the sentence he'll most likely get: life in a max-sec psych prison without parole.
He will die in jail. His life will have been for all intents and purposes ended by the state via jail. A slow death is a better alternative to a quick one?
Is that humane? I don't understand your rationale for keeping him alive.
I would understand it if you were opposed to it from an economic standpoint, or an efficiency standpoint, but from what I understand you just want to keep him alive because, if I do understand you correctly, killing a mass murderer (which the state will do either by execution or by a life sentence) is ethically unjustifiable.
If I have misconstrued your intent, can you please state your rationale why it is unthinkable that someone be executed if the crime is egregious enough? Rehabilitation is impossible, and I'm pretty sure he forfeited his right to life.
Are you afraid of society stooping down to his level? Then why do we have life sentences without the possibility of parole? That is worlds more inhumane and cruel than a lethal injection.
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
...Where did you get the information to suggest that he'll most likely get a life sentence?
Maximum penalty for pre-meditated murder in Arizona is the death penalty, and the consensus right now (as far as I'm aware) is that this is what the prosecutors will be pushing for.
Well, sorry, I am torn up about it. There's no reason to have this be a shooting that resulted in 6 eventual deaths. It'll be punishment enough for Loughner to receive his trial and be sent to prison rather than the FEMA death camp that he no doubt believes he'll be sent to right now, have his world view shattered (if not over night), and spend the rest of his days trying to atone for his hubris.
As well, I'm not entirely convinced someone with this level of psychosis is capable of actualizing his own incongruity with societal mores and standards. He appears to be completely delusional and aggressively endangering of himself and those around him with complete obliviousness. As well he seems to hold a strong persecution complex and paranoia to an extremely debilitating level. None of that strikes me as qualities of a person with the capacity to really understand his criminal and moral complicity in such an act of unspeakable evil.
Should death be the most utilitarian solution, I vote for death. Not for malice; that accomplishes little.
First, draconian judicial policies correlate quite closely with societal dysfunction (high rates of crime & violence, for example). Second, it's two-faced for a state to decry murder as a criminal act and then engage in that same act in retribution. It, to me, makes the entire concept of justice within that state a farce. Third, incarcerating someone is not the same as killing them; a prisoner is not 'dying slowly', at least no more than anyone outside of a prison is. If you're saying the conditions within Western prisons are barbaric, I agree, and I would like to see the floor raised on that issue as well - but that's a separate issue from whether or not the state should be engaged in systematically executing people it has deemed unfit for life.
Moreover, as I'm not the one who wishes to claim the seat of power over someone else's life, I'm not the one with the argument's burden - you are. Why do you want the man dead, assuming you do? What do you hope to accomplish by killing him?
So basically you're seeking out a GREATER punishment than death, eh?
That's not entirely noble of you. And given the details of the case, you're probably waiting on a train what don't come 'round.
If he's incapable of rehabilitation or atonement, and is unacquitably guilty for his crime, death the best option. And not for any reason of punition.
Keeping him incarcerated for the rest of his life is not the state killing him, slowly or otherwise.
...You think that experiencing incredible guilt for an action and a desire to atone for it is a punishment more severe than death?
Well, okay.
I don't.
Other than the inevitable contraction of hepatitis and tuberculosis he'll probably get just from being in jail, I suppose. Or beaten or stabbed or raped to death. Combustible psychos, especially weird and aggressively antisocial ones like him, don't last long in real jails; his best bet for safety is a long-term psych prison, and I can almost assure you that's what his defense will be pushing for.
This is a red herring: the condition of jails in the U.S. (and the Western hemisphere) has nothing to do with the concept of incarceration.
Just yesterday we were talking about the death penalty in chat. Long story short, I agree with you.
I don't want Loughner executed, for the simple reason that I don't want anybody[/] executed, but I'm not going to lift a finger to stop it from happening in this particular case.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
In other words, I agree with Feral.
It seems that death row costs something like three times more per year, due to extra guards, etc, involved in keeping a death row inmate.
According to some quick googles, average time from sentence to execution in the US, in 2009, was 169 months. Let's call it 14 years. If standard prison annual costs are X, that's 42X. So if he would survive longer than 42 years in a life sentence, this becomes cost effective. Now, I have also read that costs triple over 55 (in CA). They say that is due to some accounting oversight and overpayment to employees, so lets say they increase by 1.5. Since he's 20, the cost to 55 would be 35X, the remaining 7x would only cover 3.5 years; so 38.5 years for a 20 year old would cost 42X.
Assuming that is anywhere close to accurate, death row would be cost effective if he is expected to survive more than 38.5 years in prison. That seems likely (barring prison violence against him). In his case, he also seems likely to incur mental health costs, and his appeals probably aren't going to go the distance, which reduces execution costs and increases the life-sentence costs. So while normally the death penalty is shockingly more expensive, in this case it sounds reasonable; but not by a huge margin.
Therapeutic killing is wrong, no matter what.
To extend a bit more into the issue of Loughner, I believe his case is a critique of how we as a society treat the mentally ill. Specifically, we need a dramatic revamp of how we approach the issue of mental illness. It's far too misunderstood and typically goes untreated or treated incorrectly.
In other words, you're opposed to the death penalty when it's trendy to do so?
Ross's 'utilitarian' argument is bogus. I mean, does he apply that same utilitarian standard to, say, medicine? What does he do when he receives a patient who's almost certainly fatally injured? "Aw, this one's a goner. Better just dump them in the gutter to save resources."
Like Reagans attempted killer, he's been out for a few years now after sitting through psych treatment.
I find it unlikely that Loughner is in any risk of being executed.
The utilitarian aspect of this argument goes to the man being of no further use, nor are any prospects left open for him. His life, his role in our society, is over. There is no sense in supporting him any longer than necessary.
That isn't the best argument by a mile - the strongest would be that the death penalty is a mechanism for destroying evidence. Now, again, that doesn't apply here - but what are you seeking out Loughner's death for? What do you want to accomplish through his death that couldn't be accomplished by humanely incarcerating him?
I'm referring to the specific claim that Ross was making where he said he 'always' sought the most utilitarian answer.
I don't know if it's ironic. But as far as reasons behind failed assassinations go, it's pretty funny.
First, you don't know that he's of absolutely no further use, unless you have a magic crystal ball (certainly you don't know any better than a doctor would whether or not he could save a fatally wounded patient's life). Second, this is a special standard that people only ever apply to criminals. Heavily handicapped persons, the extremely elderly, etc - the 'utilitarian' argument is never used by anyone (sane) to advocate that society should simply shovel these people aside.
I just can't believe that people still will quite commonly give their state consent to systematically execute people.
This is not a thing that was said. "I'm rooting for the situation that produces maximum utility." and "Should death be the most utilitarian solution, I vote for death."
These statements were made in a discussion regarding our opinions on the State's handling of this specific case. Assuming that this extends to how someone treats their patients, or regulates their personal choices, is taking those statements out of context, at best.
I'm pretty comfortable betting Laughner's life against his potential positive contributions to this world once incarcerated for the rest of his natural life.
Hypothetically, what do you suppose those might be?
There are very few societies that do what you say. I'm trying to think of any societies or governments that say anything other than "Murder is wrong, with exceptions."
There is no place in the United States where it is legal for a citizen to kill another human being.
First of all, I'm not remotely sure Loughner is capable of what you seek.
Second, I'm not looking for punishment or atonement. If his death brings no additional recompense, neither does his grief or guilt.
Semantics. I'm tired, and it's a stupid game.
But outside of, say, self defense in the most grave circumstances, it is still illegal to kill. People still get jail time for killing someone that may have hurt them but was fleeing.
Edit: Also, I really shouldn't have said unjustifiable.
I award you 5 nega-hippy stars
In mass casualty situations? Absolutely.
I'm actually certified in such things, and those certification came from multilateral State, county, and city offices.
Also, medicines like epinephrine and atropine can chemically induce heartbeats for hours after systemic failures and brain death. That doesn't mean we keep doing CPR for five hours. The average length for a hospital resuscitation is probably somewhere between 10 and 25 minutes if no corresponding factors (oxygenation, motor activity, palpable pulses, legitimate blood pressure) accompany a heartbeat.
Throw 'em on the pile, friend!
edit: The end result is that you've straw-manned the state. It does not decry murder as a wrong and an evil. It states that it is illegal (based on the harm it causes society) except in certain circumstances.
If, however, we go with yours, wherein you considered killing someone in the process of attempting to take your life and anything that occurs in war murder, then yes. I suppose.
I do not like equating killing in self-defense and killing an innocent.
If he is not completely psychotic, for starters (we don't know for certain yet), your entire argument can be discarded. Second, if he is, we might be able to gain further insight into psychosis through psychiatric study of him while he's alive.
I'm not sure what other contributions might come from keeping him alive, but I do know that putting him to death ensures that his contributions after that point will be nothing. We don't know ahead of time where the next big idea or the next big contribution to human well being will come from, and feigning certainty that someone is totally useless because they've done something monstrous is falling victim to hubris.
In any case, if if we did know that Laughner would amount to nothing more than a viciously grinning inmate for the rest of his days, I don't think lining up the 'unfit' for death is at all a constructive mechanism to have in place, and I don't think you can meet the burden of proof for demonstrating that it is.
I think many of us here are using the words "murder" and "killing" interchangeably. I feel this is a grievous over-simplification.
So your issue with this case would be? Jared Loughner is most likely not an innocent.
To Atomic Ross:
I agree. I'm simply pointing out that McSnuggles doesn't use the words in the way the state uses them.