1. Some will say if not this case, no case will lead to Death penalty. Some will say we need a better more efficient process. Some individuals will always block a DP vote, some will look for every opportunity to vote for. Aside from all of that - I saw many parents were upset - and I have no answer. Life in prison, DP, does either give them justice? Would anything? Do they care about this person's background to agree - he had a rough life so it explains what he did. Nobody wins these situations. 2. I don't recall which paper it was (Daily Herald) - who may or may not have endorsed candidates - at least offered a side by side comparison of the candidates stances and views on multiple issues.
EZ - I tried the "What does my phone number spell?" and the pickings were slim. For my mobile, I was able to glom on to a number that ends in "00" (a long story), and the number speller can't do anything with the "00". (I like having my mobile number end in zero, I get some double takes from folks.)
The piece today about the Parkland killer’s sentence helped highlight the arbitrariness of how the death penalty is or isn’t dispersed, but it’s not the best. I remember about 25 years ago Eric, you wrote a piece in light of the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a modestly attractive convicted murderess from Texas who was repeatedly referred to as a “death row beauty”, and who had elicited an inordinate amount of sympathy and calls for clemency from many conservative and pro death penalty advocates, mainly because of her claims of born again Christianity and willingness to atone for her sins.
In the column you wrote at the time, you posited the facts of a particular case that made it sound as if you were writing about Tucker, but you soon revealed to be about a convicted murderer who was a black man, who had background details strikingly similar to Tucker’s, but had received zero support or calls for clemency by any of the aforementioned pundits, suggesting (convincingly) that race and personal appearance were likely to be highly influential factors in determining whether or not one should receive the ultimate penalty. I remember this column well because it converted me from being a long time fence sitter on the death penalty question to being an unqualified opponent of it. You should post it if you can.
DEATH ROW BEAUTY SHOWS EXECUTION IS ALWAYS UNFAIR Jan 22, 1998
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good one.
A born-again Christian on Death Row is facing execution. "A perfect example of redemption and reform," advocates say. A model prisoner for many years, prison officials testify. "A situation that calls for mercy," plead members of the clergy.
Yes, the double murder that resulted in the death sentence was gruesome, but the crime happened years ago--in the early 1980s--and the killer, young and on drugs at the time, is now in sober middle age and profoundly remorseful.
In a very real sense, as lawyers argue in their clemency appeal to the Republican governor, the unruly, savage person who callously took human life so long ago is already dead. Executing this new person would be an abomination; pure symbolism that accomplishes nothing and brutalizes our society.
Actually, to be precise, ladies and gentlemen, this was a good one. The main character in my tale is Walter Stewart, 42, an Illinois prisoner who was executed with very little public fuss Nov. 19.
But what's striking to me is how eerily similar Stewart's story is to the story of a Texas inmate whose case is now causing a big stir nationwide. The similarities include all the above and more--down to rotten childhoods and marriages while in prison to deeply religious outsiders.
The only significant difference is that Walter Stewart was a black man and the condemned Texas inmate is a white woman--the beauteous Karla Faye Tucker, 38.
Tucker's efforts to stave off her scheduled Feb. 3 execution have been featured recently on numerous national news programs including "60 Minutes" and have turned her into the darling of the religious right.
"There are times when mercy overwhelms justice," Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said of Tucker on his "700 Club" program.
"We conservatives have to accept the fact that people's lives can be changed," said reactionary radio ranter Oliver North, arguing on CNN's "Crossfire" that Texas Gov. George W. Bush and his Board of Pardons and Paroles should spare Tucker's life. "Rehabilitation has worked in this case."
Imperial conservative author and editor William F. Buckley added in a recent syndicated column on Tucker, "Someone who has convincingly embraced Christianity can be presumed to have gone at least part way in atoning for sins committed."
Apparently it took a pretty, white face to show the ugly side of capital punishment to its hard-shell supporters.
It's absolutely true that the Karla Faye Tucker who is scheduled to be strapped down and injected with lethal chemicals in a week and a half is in no meaningful sense the Karla Faye Tucker who participated in the 1983 pickaxe murder of a Houston couple.
The idea of executing a person whom all evidence suggest is thoroughly reformed seems to sicken even many who lust in principle for the blood revenge of the death penalty. As they get acquainted with Tucker through news coverage, they see that killing her now is pointless and wasteful.
That this moral insight appears to be the result of an applied combination of racial, sexual and religious biases is simply one of life's little ironies.
The Christian right didn't make a peep on behalf of Walter Stewart. He killed two in a 1980 robbery, declared himself "born again" in 1990, didn't have a single disciplinary violation in the last five years of his life and declared "I love Jesus Christ" in the death chamber when asked for his last words.
And if conservative totems have spoken out on behalf of any of those on Death Row who have demonstrably repented of their crimes and reformed themselves yet happen to be, oh, say, black, male, Muslim or simply unattractive, I guess I've missed it.
But there's one more insight here for them. The widespread revulsion at the prospect of the Tucker execution contrasted with the almost total public indifference to the Stewart execution shows yet again that capital punishment can never be fairly applied. Life and death decisions will always be subject to whim, prejudice, politics and timing.
Everyone may agree that these somewhat politically apathetic populations have widely differing ideas of what justice (perhaps a largely vengeance/retribution historical bias) and mercy (clemency) are with reference to the death penalty in Texas, America, and the world generally. I think JakeH’s and Eric’s perspicuous comments with reference to this ineradicable problem make that clear; and reconciling the differences people have about the death penalty is something that calls for abiding self-restraint, as I read all this; and relevant conviction and understanding may be key to developing a fair resolution.
Eric makes a convincing argument, but all this just reminds me of the idea that justice is pound-for-pound where mercy is inexplicable; with respect to the death penalty, it seems like during the sentencing phase of his trial that Nicholas Cruz got mercy over justice: If mitigating circumstances won the day, how can a pure idea of justice be preserved if the death penalty is removed by law -- in all jurisdictions? According to commonplace concepts of justice, most guilty murderers deserve death in proportion to their crime – quid pro quo. Do they get it? So, more broadly, what is justice and who or what defines it culturally and/or constitutionally? What is it about the death penalty that some people, with respect to their concept of justice and mercy, abhor? It just seems to me like some people look at the Cruz judgment with more of an appetite for justice and others are interested in more of a merciful outcome or both – citizens in conflict. What are justice and mercy in this situation? What are the legal concepts that define justice and mercy in Illinois and America generally? What is the history of all this? Does it apply uniformly today? Why or why not? I think somehow the legal restraints on dishing out the death penalty may lean more toward mercy with justice often left largely behind.
'According to commonplace concepts of justice ...' Commonplace when? Commonplace where? USA is an extreme outlier in use of the death penalty among 1st world countries.
Thanks, BobE for your question; I get what you're saying. By "commonplace" I mean today in America and around the globe how people ordinarily see justice. Do cultural and legal definitions of justice differ?
If I remember my crim law class, criminal punishment has four main purposes: confinement, deterrence, correction, and retribution. What you're calling justice is mainly the last one. I'm comfortable with a system that pretty much crosses that reason off the list.
This is for two practical reasons. If the person is to get out at some point (as they do for most crimes), retribution works at cross-purposes with social safety. It will only harden the person and make it more likely they will commit future crimes. For the vast majority of prisoners who will be released, I tend to think corrections -- at least the good faith attempt! -- should be more than a euphemism.
If the person will never get out, because the crime is too horrible, I do not abhor the death penalty in theory. I do abhor it in practice. That's because it's not consistently applied and because you can't fix mistakes, which a vast record and common sense tell us are likely to occur with some regularity.
In this bargain, we lose a speculative deterrent effect and the desire to see our just vengeance expressed by the state. Most say it's not a deterrent. I don't think it's that easy to know, actually, and some have argued that even a minimal, latent deterrent effect might be worth it. On the other hand, if we're just speculating, you could also speculate that a death penalty routinely applied might coarsen a culture and lead to more violence at the margin.
As for that just vengeance, I very much understand it. I feel something like it everyday whenever I contemplate the latest outrage in the news. We all fantasize about what we'd like to see befall someone like, say, Vladimir Putin. And I feel for the Parkland victims' families who must feel that the jury's inability to reach a unanimous death penalty verdict is a downvote on their pain and grief (a feeling they wouldn't quite have, by the way, if the death penalty had never been on the table). And yet, these aren't exactly wholesome Christian feelings, and I don't see it as the state's role to vindicate them. The bottom line is that there's no fixing such crimes, even if you put a fancy word on it like "justice."
eric - amen to eliminating the death penalty, for all the rational reasons you list and explain. one of my best friends is [was] both a 'Fox' conservative and an ardent opponent of the death penalty. he claimed that over 25% of the capital executions in America up to that time ['70s/'80s] were later found to have been carried out against convicted who were not guilty of the crime for which they were executed.
A look at Project Innocence etc. will highlight the failures of the "justice" system from bottom to top. Who gets stopped, arrested, and charged, Who gets charged with what level of felony, Whose exculpatory evidence doesn't get presented, [E.G. The guy who was in Cook County Jail at the time of a crime who was charged anyway.] Who gets terrible 'legal counsel', Who gets psychiatric evidence of their ability to know the difference between wrong and right, Who gets convicted even though they have a mental age of 9. None of these stages on the road to the death penalty is free of bias and prejudice.
I am glad I live in a state where the death penalty has been abolished. This gives the possibility of going back and correcting the errors of the prosecution and the defense. The death penalty takes all of that possibility away.
I spent my career in law as a prosecutor and as a criminal court judge. I do not and have never supported the death penalty for many of the reasons you listed, but over the course of my career i learned one more reason. The victim’s relatives who sought vengeance seldom healed. And they did not find peace even with an execution. The families who were not vindictive somehow found peace. And on a practical level, spending a lifetime in prison is infinitely more punitive than death.
It is indeed a noteworthy anomaly that Illinois, which taxes virtually everything else that moves or is stationary at a draconian rate, conspicuously does not tax retirement income. I've always suspected the answer for this lies in the fact that the public employee unions which essentially control illinois, presently have over 10,000 retirees with retirement income in excess of $100,000. I believe these folks do not want their very lucrative pensions to be touched by state taxes, and they have the clout to prevent it from happening while everything else is taxed at an exceedingly exorbitant rate.
I also think the public employee unions have a second ace to play. A tax on retirement income would need an exemption for public pensions because of the constitutional language that public pensions 'shall not be diminished or impaired'. I am quite certain that a tax would easily be construed as violating that clause. The non-public unions would not share that protection, so I am sure that they would also be opposed. But there is no reason that the state could not craft a law that exempted union pensions also. I suspect that if they ever go after retirement income it will start with IRA and 401K payments made to 'rich' and 'high income' people.
It hadn't occurred to me that "begging the question" stands alone and doesn't need (and in fact is diluted by the addition) "of" to connect the verbal phrase to said question...so it would've been easy to vote "give it up." So... if you had already (given up), I would've missed Peter's ruling and eloquent defense of elegant and clear language. Yes, I am that guy.
I think that the deterrence effect of law enforcement and the justice system are probably pretty small for violent crime. Maybe for all crime, since there is ample evidence of political corruption, white collar crime, and property crime that do not seem to conform to a rational assessment of risk for those that are caught. The very low rate of arrest and conviction across all categories of crime would also guide a rational actor, if there are such criminals. Retribution has lost its social consensus and there seems to be a new and growing consensus that people can be sufficiently changed in prison to justify their release, regardless of their crime. Confinement is then limited to people that are dangerous or not capable of correction. Compassionate release uses this logic in addition to the cost of incarceration of older inmates. There is really no reason for the families of victims to believe that anyone will 'die in prison' regardless of how heinous their crimes or the nature of their life sentence. Maybe that is good, but I am not sure that retribution isn't a valid part of justice.
I would say retribution is a valid part of justice. Relatives of the deceased will show up for every parole hearing when applicable, proving that the pain of loss is ongoing, no matter the length of time or the supposed "change" in prison (and claiming religious healing should not be a free ticket to a reduced sentence). I don't believe the death penalty is appropriate, ever, but the friends and relatives of victims should expect a sentence will be served in full as decided in court.
The other reaction that I had to the Cruz verdict was the absurd length of time it took to complete the trial. It took 4.75 years to convict and sentence the person that was known with certainty to have committed the crime. He was caught on the day of the crime and pleaded guilty a year ago. The slow-motion judicial system contributes to the lack of a sense of justice for victims and undermines any possible deterrence effect.
We now have confirmation that the city is not serious about drifting and street takeovers. In the report about the weekend shooting at one of the events the police said that they had been 'monitoring the event' along with several others that were 'of no consequence'. They also have a nice benign sounding new name for these events - 'car caravans'. I feel better since caravans are so much less chaotic, disorderly, and dangerous. Problem solved. The participants obviously know that the city is doing nothing more than monitoring. Maybe there will be fewer events if there is more shooting. That is a policy option that the police can monitor.
The death penalty....I am a retired police officer and I'm against the death penalty, making me somewhat of a rarity. There was a time when I supported executions, but education and experience have turned me around. I have multiple reasons, the first of which is that whether or not someone will be sentenced to death depends upon the quality of their legal representation, at least during the original trial. That's not to diminish their representation, but to recognize that often times the defense attorney is appointed (a public defender) and as such, and also remembering that very many of the offenders are poor and they can't afford the services of higher priced )and seemingly better) lawyers. My next objection has to do with deterrence. I do not believe that people who are about to commit a crime (at any level) is deterred even a small bit by the thought of potential punishment. Perhaps a reasonable person who thinks about committing a crime might stop and think that "this isn't a good idea" based on a sense of right and wrong what might happen if caught. To think that someone who decides to commit a murder, or does so in a fit of passion might stop because "hey, I might get the death penalty" is laughable. Even a person who decides to roll through a stop sign or speed down a street doesn't have a conversation with themselves weighing the pros and cons. They do what they want thinking only of punishments after being caught. And as a final point against the death penalty; we live in what is thought of as judeo christian society (or has been in the past) and while I'm not a religious scholar or even a church goer, is there a religion or a belief system anywhere that doesn't respect human life? In addition, one other of your previous commentators referred to the fact that when an execution happens, it is done in the name of the people of the state where it is carried out. You know what? I don't want people killed in my name, I spent a career trying to prevent killings in whatever small way I was able. Executions are revenge, not justice. A lifetime behind bars thinking about what you did? That's justice enough for me.
1. Some will say if not this case, no case will lead to Death penalty. Some will say we need a better more efficient process. Some individuals will always block a DP vote, some will look for every opportunity to vote for. Aside from all of that - I saw many parents were upset - and I have no answer. Life in prison, DP, does either give them justice? Would anything? Do they care about this person's background to agree - he had a rough life so it explains what he did. Nobody wins these situations. 2. I don't recall which paper it was (Daily Herald) - who may or may not have endorsed candidates - at least offered a side by side comparison of the candidates stances and views on multiple issues.
EZ - I tried the "What does my phone number spell?" and the pickings were slim. For my mobile, I was able to glom on to a number that ends in "00" (a long story), and the number speller can't do anything with the "00". (I like having my mobile number end in zero, I get some double takes from folks.)
I don't know, it seemed to work for me. I look forward to telling people to reach me at 77-ELK-MUG-UH.
(Not really what I got, but like that. Please don't call or swat the true 77-ELK-MUG-UH.)
If we didn't insist on preserving archaic grammar rules, how else would we know who is better than whom?
The piece today about the Parkland killer’s sentence helped highlight the arbitrariness of how the death penalty is or isn’t dispersed, but it’s not the best. I remember about 25 years ago Eric, you wrote a piece in light of the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker, a modestly attractive convicted murderess from Texas who was repeatedly referred to as a “death row beauty”, and who had elicited an inordinate amount of sympathy and calls for clemency from many conservative and pro death penalty advocates, mainly because of her claims of born again Christianity and willingness to atone for her sins.
In the column you wrote at the time, you posited the facts of a particular case that made it sound as if you were writing about Tucker, but you soon revealed to be about a convicted murderer who was a black man, who had background details strikingly similar to Tucker’s, but had received zero support or calls for clemency by any of the aforementioned pundits, suggesting (convincingly) that race and personal appearance were likely to be highly influential factors in determining whether or not one should receive the ultimate penalty. I remember this column well because it converted me from being a long time fence sitter on the death penalty question to being an unqualified opponent of it. You should post it if you can.
DEATH ROW BEAUTY SHOWS EXECUTION IS ALWAYS UNFAIR Jan 22, 1998
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good one.
A born-again Christian on Death Row is facing execution. "A perfect example of redemption and reform," advocates say. A model prisoner for many years, prison officials testify. "A situation that calls for mercy," plead members of the clergy.
Yes, the double murder that resulted in the death sentence was gruesome, but the crime happened years ago--in the early 1980s--and the killer, young and on drugs at the time, is now in sober middle age and profoundly remorseful.
In a very real sense, as lawyers argue in their clemency appeal to the Republican governor, the unruly, savage person who callously took human life so long ago is already dead. Executing this new person would be an abomination; pure symbolism that accomplishes nothing and brutalizes our society.
Actually, to be precise, ladies and gentlemen, this was a good one. The main character in my tale is Walter Stewart, 42, an Illinois prisoner who was executed with very little public fuss Nov. 19.
But what's striking to me is how eerily similar Stewart's story is to the story of a Texas inmate whose case is now causing a big stir nationwide. The similarities include all the above and more--down to rotten childhoods and marriages while in prison to deeply religious outsiders.
The only significant difference is that Walter Stewart was a black man and the condemned Texas inmate is a white woman--the beauteous Karla Faye Tucker, 38.
Tucker's efforts to stave off her scheduled Feb. 3 execution have been featured recently on numerous national news programs including "60 Minutes" and have turned her into the darling of the religious right.
"There are times when mercy overwhelms justice," Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson said of Tucker on his "700 Club" program.
"We conservatives have to accept the fact that people's lives can be changed," said reactionary radio ranter Oliver North, arguing on CNN's "Crossfire" that Texas Gov. George W. Bush and his Board of Pardons and Paroles should spare Tucker's life. "Rehabilitation has worked in this case."
Imperial conservative author and editor William F. Buckley added in a recent syndicated column on Tucker, "Someone who has convincingly embraced Christianity can be presumed to have gone at least part way in atoning for sins committed."
Apparently it took a pretty, white face to show the ugly side of capital punishment to its hard-shell supporters.
It's absolutely true that the Karla Faye Tucker who is scheduled to be strapped down and injected with lethal chemicals in a week and a half is in no meaningful sense the Karla Faye Tucker who participated in the 1983 pickaxe murder of a Houston couple.
The idea of executing a person whom all evidence suggest is thoroughly reformed seems to sicken even many who lust in principle for the blood revenge of the death penalty. As they get acquainted with Tucker through news coverage, they see that killing her now is pointless and wasteful.
That this moral insight appears to be the result of an applied combination of racial, sexual and religious biases is simply one of life's little ironies.
The Christian right didn't make a peep on behalf of Walter Stewart. He killed two in a 1980 robbery, declared himself "born again" in 1990, didn't have a single disciplinary violation in the last five years of his life and declared "I love Jesus Christ" in the death chamber when asked for his last words.
And if conservative totems have spoken out on behalf of any of those on Death Row who have demonstrably repented of their crimes and reformed themselves yet happen to be, oh, say, black, male, Muslim or simply unattractive, I guess I've missed it.
But there's one more insight here for them. The widespread revulsion at the prospect of the Tucker execution contrasted with the almost total public indifference to the Stewart execution shows yet again that capital punishment can never be fairly applied. Life and death decisions will always be subject to whim, prejudice, politics and timing.
----------
Yep, this is the one, I remember it well (didn’t remember that it was published on my 27th birthday). Thanks Eric.
Everyone may agree that these somewhat politically apathetic populations have widely differing ideas of what justice (perhaps a largely vengeance/retribution historical bias) and mercy (clemency) are with reference to the death penalty in Texas, America, and the world generally. I think JakeH’s and Eric’s perspicuous comments with reference to this ineradicable problem make that clear; and reconciling the differences people have about the death penalty is something that calls for abiding self-restraint, as I read all this; and relevant conviction and understanding may be key to developing a fair resolution.
Eric makes a convincing argument, but all this just reminds me of the idea that justice is pound-for-pound where mercy is inexplicable; with respect to the death penalty, it seems like during the sentencing phase of his trial that Nicholas Cruz got mercy over justice: If mitigating circumstances won the day, how can a pure idea of justice be preserved if the death penalty is removed by law -- in all jurisdictions? According to commonplace concepts of justice, most guilty murderers deserve death in proportion to their crime – quid pro quo. Do they get it? So, more broadly, what is justice and who or what defines it culturally and/or constitutionally? What is it about the death penalty that some people, with respect to their concept of justice and mercy, abhor? It just seems to me like some people look at the Cruz judgment with more of an appetite for justice and others are interested in more of a merciful outcome or both – citizens in conflict. What are justice and mercy in this situation? What are the legal concepts that define justice and mercy in Illinois and America generally? What is the history of all this? Does it apply uniformly today? Why or why not? I think somehow the legal restraints on dishing out the death penalty may lean more toward mercy with justice often left largely behind.
'According to commonplace concepts of justice ...' Commonplace when? Commonplace where? USA is an extreme outlier in use of the death penalty among 1st world countries.
Thanks, BobE for your question; I get what you're saying. By "commonplace" I mean today in America and around the globe how people ordinarily see justice. Do cultural and legal definitions of justice differ?
most definitely. this issue is so complicated. your orig comment is indicative - more questions than answers
If I remember my crim law class, criminal punishment has four main purposes: confinement, deterrence, correction, and retribution. What you're calling justice is mainly the last one. I'm comfortable with a system that pretty much crosses that reason off the list.
This is for two practical reasons. If the person is to get out at some point (as they do for most crimes), retribution works at cross-purposes with social safety. It will only harden the person and make it more likely they will commit future crimes. For the vast majority of prisoners who will be released, I tend to think corrections -- at least the good faith attempt! -- should be more than a euphemism.
If the person will never get out, because the crime is too horrible, I do not abhor the death penalty in theory. I do abhor it in practice. That's because it's not consistently applied and because you can't fix mistakes, which a vast record and common sense tell us are likely to occur with some regularity.
In this bargain, we lose a speculative deterrent effect and the desire to see our just vengeance expressed by the state. Most say it's not a deterrent. I don't think it's that easy to know, actually, and some have argued that even a minimal, latent deterrent effect might be worth it. On the other hand, if we're just speculating, you could also speculate that a death penalty routinely applied might coarsen a culture and lead to more violence at the margin.
As for that just vengeance, I very much understand it. I feel something like it everyday whenever I contemplate the latest outrage in the news. We all fantasize about what we'd like to see befall someone like, say, Vladimir Putin. And I feel for the Parkland victims' families who must feel that the jury's inability to reach a unanimous death penalty verdict is a downvote on their pain and grief (a feeling they wouldn't quite have, by the way, if the death penalty had never been on the table). And yet, these aren't exactly wholesome Christian feelings, and I don't see it as the state's role to vindicate them. The bottom line is that there's no fixing such crimes, even if you put a fancy word on it like "justice."
Insightful -- thanks, JakeH.
eric - amen to eliminating the death penalty, for all the rational reasons you list and explain. one of my best friends is [was] both a 'Fox' conservative and an ardent opponent of the death penalty. he claimed that over 25% of the capital executions in America up to that time ['70s/'80s] were later found to have been carried out against convicted who were not guilty of the crime for which they were executed.
A look at Project Innocence etc. will highlight the failures of the "justice" system from bottom to top. Who gets stopped, arrested, and charged, Who gets charged with what level of felony, Whose exculpatory evidence doesn't get presented, [E.G. The guy who was in Cook County Jail at the time of a crime who was charged anyway.] Who gets terrible 'legal counsel', Who gets psychiatric evidence of their ability to know the difference between wrong and right, Who gets convicted even though they have a mental age of 9. None of these stages on the road to the death penalty is free of bias and prejudice.
I am glad I live in a state where the death penalty has been abolished. This gives the possibility of going back and correcting the errors of the prosecution and the defense. The death penalty takes all of that possibility away.
I spent my career in law as a prosecutor and as a criminal court judge. I do not and have never supported the death penalty for many of the reasons you listed, but over the course of my career i learned one more reason. The victim’s relatives who sought vengeance seldom healed. And they did not find peace even with an execution. The families who were not vindictive somehow found peace. And on a practical level, spending a lifetime in prison is infinitely more punitive than death.
It is indeed a noteworthy anomaly that Illinois, which taxes virtually everything else that moves or is stationary at a draconian rate, conspicuously does not tax retirement income. I've always suspected the answer for this lies in the fact that the public employee unions which essentially control illinois, presently have over 10,000 retirees with retirement income in excess of $100,000. I believe these folks do not want their very lucrative pensions to be touched by state taxes, and they have the clout to prevent it from happening while everything else is taxed at an exceedingly exorbitant rate.
I also think the public employee unions have a second ace to play. A tax on retirement income would need an exemption for public pensions because of the constitutional language that public pensions 'shall not be diminished or impaired'. I am quite certain that a tax would easily be construed as violating that clause. The non-public unions would not share that protection, so I am sure that they would also be opposed. But there is no reason that the state could not craft a law that exempted union pensions also. I suspect that if they ever go after retirement income it will start with IRA and 401K payments made to 'rich' and 'high income' people.
It hadn't occurred to me that "begging the question" stands alone and doesn't need (and in fact is diluted by the addition) "of" to connect the verbal phrase to said question...so it would've been easy to vote "give it up." So... if you had already (given up), I would've missed Peter's ruling and eloquent defense of elegant and clear language. Yes, I am that guy.
I think that the deterrence effect of law enforcement and the justice system are probably pretty small for violent crime. Maybe for all crime, since there is ample evidence of political corruption, white collar crime, and property crime that do not seem to conform to a rational assessment of risk for those that are caught. The very low rate of arrest and conviction across all categories of crime would also guide a rational actor, if there are such criminals. Retribution has lost its social consensus and there seems to be a new and growing consensus that people can be sufficiently changed in prison to justify their release, regardless of their crime. Confinement is then limited to people that are dangerous or not capable of correction. Compassionate release uses this logic in addition to the cost of incarceration of older inmates. There is really no reason for the families of victims to believe that anyone will 'die in prison' regardless of how heinous their crimes or the nature of their life sentence. Maybe that is good, but I am not sure that retribution isn't a valid part of justice.
I would say retribution is a valid part of justice. Relatives of the deceased will show up for every parole hearing when applicable, proving that the pain of loss is ongoing, no matter the length of time or the supposed "change" in prison (and claiming religious healing should not be a free ticket to a reduced sentence). I don't believe the death penalty is appropriate, ever, but the friends and relatives of victims should expect a sentence will be served in full as decided in court.
The other reaction that I had to the Cruz verdict was the absurd length of time it took to complete the trial. It took 4.75 years to convict and sentence the person that was known with certainty to have committed the crime. He was caught on the day of the crime and pleaded guilty a year ago. The slow-motion judicial system contributes to the lack of a sense of justice for victims and undermines any possible deterrence effect.
We now have confirmation that the city is not serious about drifting and street takeovers. In the report about the weekend shooting at one of the events the police said that they had been 'monitoring the event' along with several others that were 'of no consequence'. They also have a nice benign sounding new name for these events - 'car caravans'. I feel better since caravans are so much less chaotic, disorderly, and dangerous. Problem solved. The participants obviously know that the city is doing nothing more than monitoring. Maybe there will be fewer events if there is more shooting. That is a policy option that the police can monitor.
The death penalty....I am a retired police officer and I'm against the death penalty, making me somewhat of a rarity. There was a time when I supported executions, but education and experience have turned me around. I have multiple reasons, the first of which is that whether or not someone will be sentenced to death depends upon the quality of their legal representation, at least during the original trial. That's not to diminish their representation, but to recognize that often times the defense attorney is appointed (a public defender) and as such, and also remembering that very many of the offenders are poor and they can't afford the services of higher priced )and seemingly better) lawyers. My next objection has to do with deterrence. I do not believe that people who are about to commit a crime (at any level) is deterred even a small bit by the thought of potential punishment. Perhaps a reasonable person who thinks about committing a crime might stop and think that "this isn't a good idea" based on a sense of right and wrong what might happen if caught. To think that someone who decides to commit a murder, or does so in a fit of passion might stop because "hey, I might get the death penalty" is laughable. Even a person who decides to roll through a stop sign or speed down a street doesn't have a conversation with themselves weighing the pros and cons. They do what they want thinking only of punishments after being caught. And as a final point against the death penalty; we live in what is thought of as judeo christian society (or has been in the past) and while I'm not a religious scholar or even a church goer, is there a religion or a belief system anywhere that doesn't respect human life? In addition, one other of your previous commentators referred to the fact that when an execution happens, it is done in the name of the people of the state where it is carried out. You know what? I don't want people killed in my name, I spent a career trying to prevent killings in whatever small way I was able. Executions are revenge, not justice. A lifetime behind bars thinking about what you did? That's justice enough for me.