But the tougher argument is a case like this one, where we know the guy was guilty and where we have little sympathy for him as a person. Even in those cases, the state should not have the right to kill its citizens as punishment.”

I don’t know that the tougher argument really needs to be made, though. I mean, I’m pro-death-penalty-in-theory. I’d just as soon we make sure that our John Wayne Gaceys and Ted Bundys and Daniel Conahans and Gary Ridgways really, absolutely can’t hurt anyone ever again.

But if we can’t give the state the authority to execute the no question, society is better off with them in a box under six feet of dirt guys without winding up hip-deep in cases where the crimes are less egregious or the evidence is shakier or the question of whether or not to pursue the death penalty was answered by the defendant’s skin color, religion, or ability to afford a private attorney or the court has evinced a criminal indifference to exculpatory evidence, then we shouldn’t be giving the state the authority to execute anyone. The difference between executing the John Allen Muhammads and keeping them in a supermax for the rest of their lives with no possibility of parole is not–or at least shouldn’t be–so very fucking important that it provides cover for the capital prosecution of questionable cases or a cavalier attitude shown in the handling of even fairly certain cases.

Well geez, William, I wasn’t defending the death penalty wholesale, I was just saying that when it’s applied to John Allen Mohammed, I don’t really have a problem with it.

Thats like saying you don’t have a problem with free speech in general, just when it’s used to make a picture of the Prophet. Its a statement which contradicts it’s premise. I don’t necessarily have a problem with someone killing John Allen Muhammad, I do have a problem with the state possessing the power to do so. That isn’t because I think he is worthy of life but because of the implications that such a system of power has for the rest of society. I don’t have much love for terrorists either, but I find the concept of our government reserving the right to waterboard pretty repugnant regardless of who is getting strapped down.

Anyway, the Supreme Court case that said the death penalty couldn’t apply to ‘mere’ rapists was Coker v. Georgia, which actually dealt with a killer who escaped from prison and raped a woman.

Such events are terrible, but I reiterate my question. How many innocent lives should society be willing to trade in exchange for being able to prevent murderers from escaping and committing another crime? That is the objective end of the policy we’re talking about.

Anyway, my point wasn’t that we’re letting Timothy McVeigh escape all over again every day to plot more terrorist acts; it was that the continued presence of these people in our lives, with all the rights and privileges accorded to an American prisoner, is a stain on our society.

Honestly, part of me agrees with you. I just happen to think that it isn’t so terrible a stain that we ought to be willing to trade the lives of innocent men (and the freedom of guilty ones) in order to fix it. Ted Bundy is terrible, putting an innocent man to death because we can’t get our shit together is worse.

The fear of them killing again isn’t the only reason to get rid of them– it’s their inclusion in our system in any way.

Lets unpack that just a bit. What you’re saying is that the damage done by these kinds of individuals continuing to live is so great that we ought to kill them. In order to make that argument you have to not only make the argument that society has a vested interest in killing, but also that we can kill not for a crime committed but for the mere effects of someone’s existence. Essentially you’re arguing that even with the chance of recidivism at zero society still has an interest in killing these men because their mere presence is so antithetical to a sense of decency that they cannot be segregated through any means other than absolute obliteration. Finally, you’re arguing that the value to be gained from doing this is so great that it is worth some innocent deaths and that society ought to have the right to make that call.

At the core you’re arguing that society has the right to kill those who make us uncomfortable and to sacrifice the lives of others in order to facilitate this killing. You’re arguing that the basic rights of the individual are irrelevant in the face of the group’s disgust. Do you realize that?

It shouldn’t come as any surprise that we allow this ideology to permeate our criminal justice system. “I pledge allegiance to the flag, and promise to kick ass and take names. Hoorah!”

So, unless there’s a seamless cube a mile below ground where machines will feed these guys until they die of natural causes… next best option.

You live in a country that imprisons around one percent of it’s total population. How many major prison breaks do we experience in a year? How many McVeighs have found their way out to reoffend? Put up or shut up, friend.

Also, say some terrible criminal did somehow manage to escape and reoffend. How many inevitable deaths of innocent people (and the co-occurring escape of actual criminals) are you willing to trade for the right to kill those monsters? How many (likely poor, black) lives are worth the death of a monster? How many guys in the wrong place at the wrong time get to be strapped to a table to prevent the off-chance of a John Allen Muhammed escaping?

So, unless there’s a seamless cube a mile below ground where machines will feed these guys until they die of natural causes… next best option.

You live in a country that imprisons around one percent of it’s total population. How many major prison breaks do we experience in a year? How many McVeighs have found their way out to reoffend? Put up or shut up, friend.

Also, say some terrible criminal did somehow manage to escape and reoffend. How many inevitable deaths of innocent people (and the co-occurring escape of actual criminals) are you willing to trade for the right to kill those monsters? How many (likely poor, black) lives are worth the death of a monster? How many guys in the wrong place at the wrong time get to be strapped to a table to prevent the off-chance of a John Allen Muhammed escaping?

Are you really under the impression that the only costs related to execution come from the state?

As far as I know, it depends on how you define “related to execution.” Federal dollars paid for the original FBI investigation, and the federal government subsidizes state prisons, and it takes federal dollars to process the inevitable last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court, but I’m pretty sure the Feds don’t actually subsidize the execution itself. This seems like an odd cause to get worked up about in your capacity as a taxpayer too, as the amount of money spent on executions pales in comparison to the amount the government wastes on other bad causes.

Personally, I am not a fan of the death penalty, but I find it hard to get worked up about it. Executing an innocent person doesn’t strike me as that much worse than sending an innocent person to life without parole, especially given the horrendous condition of our prisons. Theoretically an innocent person could be released but the chance of this actually happening is minuscule. The equality-related problems with the death penalty (more likely to be imposed on black defendants, etc.) are systemic problems not specific to execution. Defendants of color get harsher sentences no matter how severe the crime.

So as far as I’m concerned, the death penalty is small potatoes compared to the much more serious problems with the justice system.