May 08, 2007

• Something I meant to mention above. In addition to why is the media not reporting this, what exactly makes a story newsworthy? If this had happened in another city, such as London or New York, would it be reported because of the perceived "importance" of those locations? If they had been 2 years younger, the killers white, etc. would it have made a difference in what the media deems worthy of assaulting our eyes and ears for 7 days straight?
• I know one thing: I really, really wish I hadn't clicked on that link.
• That's a horrible story. I don't know why it didn't get more coverage, either. None of the reasons I can come up with seem very convincing to me.
• I know one thing: I really, really wish I hadn't clicked on that link. posted by minda25 at 07:04PM UTC on May 08, 2007 Yeah... I had a feeling some people might feel that way... Hence "horrific crime commited in Tennesee" Though in hindsight I probably shoulda wrote "horrific rape/murders..." 'sides, it made me lose my appetite, so if I gotta waste my lunch today, so do all of you! Stupid snopes... (kidding of course, levity seems a bit out of place in this thread...)
• Snopes says: ...the notion that every major news outlet in the U.S. (all of them competitive, profit-making businesses) has conspired to ignore what would otherwise be a compelling national story is rather implausible. A more rational explanation might be found in the sober observation that murders even decidedly horrific murders are unfortunately too frequent an occurrence in the U.S. for all of them to garner national attention. The cases that do tend to attract prolonged, nationwide coverage are ones exhibiting a combination of factors (e.g., scandal, mystery, sexual elements, celebrity involvement, shockingly large numbers of deaths, victims who especially elicit sympathy) that make them particularly fascinating and compelling to the public at large, such as the still-unsolved murder of 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey, the mysterious disappearance (and death) of pregnant Laci Peterson, the massacre of 32 students and faculty at Virginia Tech, and the celebrity trial to determine whether actress Lana Clarkson committed suicide or was killed by reclusive Record producer Phil Spector. Also, it appears that on May 17 they'll all be in court again for a status hearing (whatever that is). In this one case I certainly am not on the fence about the death penalty: the "people" who did this absolutely deserve that particular consequence. On preview: it's okay, Debaser. I knew I'd be in for it, and clicked anyway. Next time I'm going to listen to my gut!
• A gruesome tale, indeed, and surely newsworthy. I see it has white supremacists suitably frothing at the mouth.
• I read that too, but I didn't really buy it... (snopes' explanation that is) I think that the person who wrote the snopes page realized that most people would agree that it should be a national story and had to address that fact.
• I didn't click the link, but I, for one, am glad the media isn't sensationalizing this. When every horrific murder on the continent (and even across the globe) is reported on, it adds to the false belief that these crimes are much more common than they really are, and something to be feared and fretted over. I've had enough of this news-driven fear culture.
• If the suspects were apprehended fairly quickly, the story probably dropped out of the local media in short order and that would probably disqualify this as a "national" story. It still takes a while for local stories to bubble up into national attention if there's no obvious national hook. An ongoing investigation keeps a story alive long enough for the national news orgs to look at it. I am 100% with rocket88 about this -- I'm glad it did not become national news because the sensationalization and over-coverage of these stories has reached an unacceptable level.
• Yeah, you're probably right Debaser. I kind of think it's too gruesome for the news networks. Not that they think it's too gruesome, but that they think they'd get a lot of complaints. I also think that most of the populace would rather not acknowledge that humans are capable of such vile and horrific acts. Then again, a lot of the populace is okay with torture movies, so nevermind. On preview: Good points by rocket & briank...
• I don't think this is a hate crime, but just plain psychotic.
• Seems strange to be wishing the media would spend MORE broadcast time on fear-mongering stories of psychotic murderers.
• Someone set up a Myspace page for them. (And of course, it's full of comment spam)
• Lots on Youtube
• I don't think we're wishing for the coverage, Nickdanger; just wondering why it hadn't gotten any.
• I dunno about that minda25. Debaser has posted this at AskMe as well and now there's a MeTa thread challenging the post. Since any and all answers are at best speculation, it creates the impression that Debaser is trying to either 1)troll or 2)drum up interest for some other reason.
• I don't mean to imply that he's trolling at all. I just mean that it seems like we get plenty of fear mongering in our news as it is without national attention being paid to a horrific and senseless murder. Frankly, I think it's just fine being a local affair until the inevitable Ann Rule book comes out to sate the appetites of those who need every gory detail dramatised. The email in the snopes article mentions the Duke rape case. Why was that given national attention and this not? Because those students were upheld by society, given scholarships and fame and generally considered beyond reproach. The allegations of a brutal rape suggested that they were also somehow insulated and indulged in sociopathic behavior, and that is a relevant issue. The men who perpetrated this crime were not of the sort we generally admire as a society, nor does there seem to be any kind of immunity granted to them due to their status. If they were a group of lawyers who did this, or politicians, or even born again Christians, then there'd be a story due to the disconnect between our societal expectations and the occurence itself.
• Are you saying because we expect poor black people to do this kind of crime that it's no big deal? wtf
• *paging Truman Capote...paging Truman Capote*
• The Duke case should not have gotten that kind of focus it got. This one should've gotten more.
• I'm with Nickdanger. I don't see any reason why this would require national attention. Yes, it is extremely brutal and horrific, but I would guess that such crimes happen almost daily across the US. For example, this story I recounted was very horrific and graphic. It only received local media attention. Should it have gone national?
• No, I don't think they should get national attention, SMT. We all know to be careful when alone (or in general, really), so putting horrific crimes on the front page only serve as...what did Debaser call it? "newsdeathporn" Knowing about these incidents (especially the Debaser's) accomplish nothing. That said, I my take on Debaser's reasons for posting are a general "how did the news networks miss THAT?" perplexity, and a "this sucks, I need a hug". I sure need a hug after reading it!
• Are you saying because we expect poor black people to do this kind of crime that it's no big deal? wtf Not at all. Would the story be any different if the perpetrators were unknown white car jackers? I don't think so. I'm saying that this case doesn't merit national coverage because it's more or less cut and dried: criminals commited a horrific crime, were caught and are due to be punished. Race, quite simply, doesn't enter into it. Now if there was evidence that these men had been seeking out targets who were white in order to bring about a race war, or if that Reverend Al Sharpton was vigorously defending their actions, or if one of them was Speaker of the House, then you've got something. What aspect of this crime do you find so compelling as to merit a national spotlight? The brutality? Acts of similar brutality are by no means rare in murders. The race of those involved? Do you believe, like the supremacists mentioned above, that the criminals are being protected because of their race? Is there any evidence of this? Some failure of the justice system? It looks like they've been caught and are due to be sentenced, if they all get manslaughter convictions, then you've got a story. Seriously, why do you think the national media should take up time to discuss this story? What aspects do you think have relevance deserving of a detailed exploration?
• Some days I just open FireFox links on any and every post without really reading what's up. Unfortunately, this was one of those days. Race has absolutely nothing to do with this crime, whether or not some idiot(s) want to make it so. This is a crime about human beings torturing and killing other human beings. Murder is one thing, but what these people did is so horrific, I believe they deserve to be removed from society in a painless way. These people are sociopaths, and they should never have the chance to hurt, or even contemplate hurting, another human being again. .
• (disclaimer - playing devils advocate here) The story is that if this crime was committed by four white men against a black couple it would be national news. Regardless of the perps getting caught right away, economic status, or any other factor. If they were white you'd have heard of it nine ways of sunday. Over and over and over. There would be marches. Protests. What do there poor kids get? Relative silence. Our media sucks. We know it. They know it. You ignore a story like this and it just helps to highlight what a fucked up system of "media" we have in this country. It's not truth. It's ratings. Did I want to see this story blasted across the headlines? Nope. Did I want to see it ignored like it was. Nope.
• Not meaning to troll or drum up interest. I had a discussion with some friends regarding the media and stories they push, and others they "cover up" (i.e. Anna Nicole Smith vs. the fact that oil companies are crying "instability in the middle east is driving up prices!!" but their profits are higher than ever this morning. Perhaps I focused too much on the case itself, but I had just read the snopes article, and was in shock that anyone could do this to another human being. My actual question was (mostly) intended to be what makes a "good" news story. Why, on any given day, does the media focus on a particular group of stories. I've seen car accidents covered (non-fatal, -celebrity, "-weird crash") but while I was driving home saw a far worse accident with 0 mention in the news. The papers even carried it, but no article re the other. That's what I was trying to get across, but my reaction to the article perhaps over colored my post. I apologize to anyone who was offended/though this was pointless.
• It's a story because it happened. It was reported by the local media, there are arrested suspects, there will be a trial. No one famous died, it's horrible but I've seen worse, the people who did this are animals but that's not new; this thing has no legs. What else is there to say? The national media isn't discussing it because the only hook would be racist. And yeah, I really do smell a troll.
• Sorry debaser, I didn't see your post before I sent mine. I have no interest in name calling. I do think the post is questionable but since most of mine are ridiculous it's possible that I have no right to cast aspersions.
• Ok, I have a tiny, kind of fetal pony interest in name calling but never the less, sorry. I understand what you are saying.
• The story is that if this crime was committed by four white men against a black couple it would be national news. Well, now that's conjecture that I don't buy. You believe it to be the case, I don't, and neither of us can prove that one way or the other. Our media sucks. We know it. They know it. Now, I do agree with you there. But for different reasons. I think there are plenty of real news stories concerning relevant issues that affect our lives that are not being covered in deference to the Anna Nicholes, Britney Spears and (yes) Duke rape allegations stories. I just don't think that this is one of them.
• As naive as it sounds, what with all the horror in the world, I need to say it: how could someone do that? How could a group of people do that to another human being? It makes me reconsider my stance on the death sentence...
• Only in America...
• ...can you find the St. Louis Gateway Arch. But you can find shocking crimes against humanity anywhere trolls feed. And there are some disgusting things out there from the Nanking massacre which I will not link because of the pictures. And now I wonder why I thought I had to support my claim.
• You ignore a story like this and it just helps to highlight what a fucked up system of "media" we have in this country. I don't disagree with the sentiment, but where are the good news stories? The random-hero stories? The died-peacefully-in-their-sleep stories? Those are ignored too. And I can do without the deathnewspron all over, all the time anyway. Iraq. It's enough all by itself, y'know?
• Here ya go, pete.
• To me, the discussion on the merits of the media, in light of this story, justifies the posting. I've found it quite thought-provoking. This is a case where I think death is too good for these assilants...but that's a whole other can of worms.
• To me, the discussion on the merits of the media, in light of this story, justifies the posting. I've found it quite thought-provoking. I say yes.
• Having clicked the link, got sick to my stomach, my conclusion is; skip the trial - there shouldn't even be one, put them away FOREVER - away from all other human beings. Jesus, wtf. How do people make it that far in their lives to end up doing something like that? I liken this to the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka story in the horror factor and the sheer sociopathic nature of both crimes. These animals enjoyed what they did, therefore they deserve nothing short of permanent seclusion or death. /Mother Bear has spoken
• What's more sickening Darshon: the crime or the subsequent movie that'll portray the killers sympathetically?
• Quick Monkeyfilter, form your mob of lynch! These perps are the perps - the internet said that they are perps! Kill them worse than they killed us! Only killing them quickly will make the dead people come back! Giving perps trials means giving them rights and they should be given WRONGS instead because they are perps.
• Yes. Yes, they should be given WRONGS!
• Only killing them quickly will make the dead people come back! That's only if you kill them for our dark lord Xenu.
• ...they deserve nothing short of permanent seclusion or death. They deserve to die. Period. As quickly and as painlessly as possible, but they need to be removed from society. Do NOT jail them. Spend the money that would be used to feed, clothe, and sometimes even educate, these men on our children. There's kids out there living in poverty that need a break. The millions of dollars that these men will cost our society should go to provide a decent childhood and education for our next generation. This was not a crime of unpremeditated passion. That type of murder should NEVER be condoned, but there is a hope of returning the perpetrator to a productive life in society. The kind of torture these men committed is beyond the pale of society's forgiveness. There is no chance of redemption for these men.
• The kind of torture these men committed is beyond the pale of society's forgiveness. There is no chance of redemption for these men. Nail on the head. BTW, one of the perpetrators was a WOMAN.
• So, I passed this story along to some folks in my office, they were absolutely stunned. The general consensus was; Lack of coverage may be because this story is so astounding that it's almost unbelievable. It has rapidly been passed on to others. The other general thought; Thank God it wasn't on TV. Can't imagine the parents of those kids having to........well, it really could not get any worse for them, could it.
• You know they haven't been to trial yet, right? I mean, they haven't been proven guilty or anything... I'm wasting my time here, aren't I?
• Or, what quid said, only less wackily bitter. Or bitterly wacky. Whichever.
• I have to chime in with Nickdanger here (and quid, I suppose...) It's really important, in the face of such an awful awful crime, to remember that everyone is legally entitled to a fair trial (right?) and that even those who have been tried and convicted are sometimes innocent. what if the Central Park Jogger had died from her attack and those 5 young men wrongfully accused of her attack had been executed?? bad enough they spent 12 years in prison before being exonerated. If we want to hold on to any illusions about the US being a civilized humane nation it's of the utmost importance that the lowest scum of our society be accorded the basic civil rights that we are promised (har!) by the constitution et. al. amirite?
• Yes'm.
• And can I just say that sociopaths are about the luckiest people around that their rights are still considered in the face of such evil. God forbid we don't adhere to the book of rules regardless of the atrocities. If these people aren't the ones who did this awful thing, then obviously I would not wish them to the pit of hell. Those who did do it; to the pit of hell with them. There are few days that I find myself saying, HALLELUJAH, the law prevailed! There are far more days I find myself pondering the injustice of our version of justice.
• /bites tongue.
• Good comments. Yes, I should have put men and woman. Probably wanted to forget that a member of my sex could be a party to such horror. And YES! they should be accorded all rights to a fair trial. It will be hard to find a jury of their peers, if they're guilty. Manson, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, and Satan, perhaps. With everything that was reported, it's sounding like they've been nailed with the crime, but conviction can only come through a court of law. Unless you happen to be a victim of the war on terrorr. Then you can be locked up without fair trial for years and years on a suspicion or the wrong color skin. Don't get me started.
• I'm with Nickdanger as well. We've no information, and certainly vastely less than any potential will have. As well, it's worth remember that these defendants are innocent when and until a conviction is entered. These aren't legal technicalities, as BlueHorse amply demonstrates with the anti-terrorism example. I'm also a bit concerned with the support for the death penalty here. I'm not sure what is gained by indulging our own blood-lust. If they are guilty, let them rot.
• potential jury, that is
• Let me be very clear here; I am making my statements based on the assumption of guilt. I am making my statements based on the assumption that the information given is correct. We can call it a hypothetical story, if you want, my opinion will remain the same. In this hypothetical story I hypothetically believe they, the sociopaths, deserve to be taken out. Also, good grief, what kind of crime has to happen for people to actually let loose and get angry? Seriously. Is this not the kind of crime that you would say to yourself, as I have, these people don't deserve to live? Are you really going to keep reminding everyone that they have rights??? Yes. I know they do. How fortunate for them. I am a mother. My perspective is as such. Possibly some of you are saying, 'Ah, that explains it'. I imagine having to hear that my child has died in such a way. I can guarantee you that if I did not die from that kind of news I would do what I could to make those people suffer. I can't step far enough outside this story to make it clinical and say, "Oh, well be careful what you say now, these people have RIGHTS." Fuck that. I. Don't. Care. If they are guilty of this.....they should die. I am not generally pro-death penalty. However, I believe there are certain crimes that the death penalty is absolutely appropriate. This one one of those times. That's not indulging in blood lust. That is realizing that someone has gone so far over the line that they should no longer be allowed to indulge in the gift of life. Period.
• It seems to me that being pro or anti the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime is a difficult position to sustain. In essence, one needs to place different values on the lives of victims and their loved ones in order to say that "murderer X deserves to be locked up and the key thrown away" whereas "murderer Y should be killed". How does society determine the categories of murder? Does it make a difference if the victims are loners and orphans? How do we differentiate levels of brutality? These are questions that must be asked and answered before separate standards and punishments can be applied. For me, opposition to the death penalty for a category of crime can be absolute or absent; I don't see how the distinctions within a category can be made.
• what kind of crime has to happen for people to actually let loose and get angry So that's why you don't care about establishing any actual facts: you were waiting for such a story to come along and be a receptacle for your justified rage - ? If you're angry, fair enough; I have a lot of respect for you mate, I just don't want to wish other people death today.
• I understand where you're coming from Darshon. It just seems to me that anger is not the most appropriate way to select a punishment. One of the ways that we distinguish 'us' from 'them,' sociopaths from non-sociopaths if you want, is by not guiding our actions by raw emotion. Sure, at some level I'd like to see them dead too assuming that they're responsible for this crime as described. I'm also aware of the number of false convictions for capital offenses in the United States and as long as that number is non-zero I can never support the use of the death penalty.
• So that's why you don't care about establishing any actual facts... Welp, the corpse in the blanket in the house in which one of them was living, both disappearing at the same time, the injuries that were likely not sustained by accident (Whoops! My penis! Alas!) and I'm sure there'll be all kinds of DNA from the nature of these crimes... all of that has already been established according to the media. But then again, I have provided corpse storage for friends in the past and I'm no murderous, sadistic rapist. I should qualify this tone: I'm not for the death penalty, but I do believe in putting sick dogs down. Should these people have actually committed the crime I'd say they've rescinded their humanity - but would I kill them? Finally back to the original post, you should note from the original snopes article that this has gone national. Read the citations at the bottom: amongst all the Knoxville media there is a CBSnews.com reference for January 12, 2007, Fox News is referenced on the Wiki page for Feb 2nd and Court TV's April 3rd spot was called "Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian Brutally Murdered As The Nation Looks on". If what you meant was "why aren't national media outlets speculating about this" you worded it oddly; reporting isn't conjecture - haven't people been fired for just that?
• Welp I'm am welping.
• If you can read the horrific details of these murders and seriously think about YOUR brothersisterboygirlfriendhusbandwifedaughtersongranddaughergrandsonsonmotherfatherANYHUMAN BEINGyourself dying like this, and still believe that the perpetrators do not deserve to be removed from our society as cleanly and humanely as possible, then you will not be swayed by any discussion on MonkeyFilter or anywhere else. Those of us who have investments in the outcome of the human race tend to see things in a skewed light. It's a "breeder" thing. It's hard to be philosophically inclined to protect a sociopathic killer's right to life when you look at your sleeping child late at night. That doesn't mean that the killer doesn't have the right to a fair trial, and if convicted, the right to die as dignified and painless death as possible. I'm not saying that anybody who doesn't support the death penalty can't love someone. I am saying they have a significant failure of imagination as well as a lack of compassion for the victims and the families of the crime, as well as a lack of foresight. This type of murderer WILL hurtmaimtorturekill again. It seems to me that being pro or anti the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime is a difficult position to sustain. In essence, one needs to place different values on the lives of victims and their loved ones in order to say that "murderer X deserves to be locked up and the key thrown away" whereas "murderer Y should be killed". Roryk: Haven't you lived long enough to realize that this whole messy existence is not black or white, but infinite shades of grey? The punishment has less to do with the values placed on the lives of the victim(s) but everthing revolves around the intent and magnitude of the crime committed by the murderer(s.)It has to do with protecting society from this type murderous, torturing, UNhuman behavior.
• Imagine that your child is falsely accused of an horrific crime. Does that change your perspective?
• My discomfort with the death penalty has less to do with the life of the person being executed than it does with my own life. I don't want to be complicit in the taking of a man's (or woman's) life, no matter HOW much or how little he deserves to keep it.
• Will nobody think of the quidpups?
• *steals one of quidnunc's puppies*
• *muses idly on which dog around here might be the dad*

• It seems to me that being pro or anti the death penalty depending on the severity of the crime is a difficult position to sustain. In essence, one needs to place different values on the lives of victims and their loved ones in order to say that "murderer X deserves to be locked up and the key thrown away" whereas "murderer Y should be killed".

  Roryk: Haven't you lived long enough to realize that this whole messy existence is not black or white, but infinite shades of grey? The punishment has less to do with the values placed on the lives of the victim(s) but everthing revolves around the intent and magnitude of the crime committed by the murderer(s.)It has to do with protecting society from this type murderous, torturing, UNhuman behavior.

  My point related specifically to these shades of gray and to the difficulty in distinguishing between the values of lives and the brutality of crimes. There seems to be three positions: pro the death penalty, anti the death penalty, and pro the death penalty in certain circumstances. I understand the first two. What I don't understand is how people can be sometimes pro the death penalty and sometimes not. Maybe it's my understanding of the cases in which the death penalty is applied that's faulty, but I've always assumed that there is a clearly defined category of "capital crimes", for which the punishment is death.
• You've lost me somewhat there, roryk - there are people who are in favour of the death penalty in all circumstances? For everybody? If my child were falsely accused of a horrific crime, I would want them acquitted: I wouldn't want the system changed so that no one could ever be penalised. (If my child were falsely charged with owing money, I'd want that disproved, not all debts made unrecoverable.) If it were the case that the death penalty deterred murderers (just to entertain the possibility), then those who prevent the death penalty being imposed would be complicit (on the presumed notion of complicity) in the deaths of those who get murdered by the non-deterred murderers. So it may be that you cannot escape complicity in someone's death either way - you can only choose to be complicit in the death of the innocent or the guilty. I wouldn't defend any existing system of capital punishment, but I do think that in theory it may be right, and possibly even a duty, to edit certain monsters out of humanity - if we want to set some lower limit to what counts as properly human. I don't know whether the people under discussion are such monsters, and everybody deserves a fair trial, of course.
• So that's why you don't care about establishing any actual facts: you were waiting for such a story to come along and be a receptacle for your justified rage - ? Jesus, quid. Are you kidding me? No. I wasn't waiting for a story like this. In fact, I wish I hadn't read it, I wish I had remained completely unaware of this happening. This is the kind of thing that we generally only hear happening in movies. But I did read it. It made me angry, outraged, shocked me, horrified me, scared me. This wasn't some everyday shoot-someone-for-money/drugs/revenge/yadayada crime. This is, apparently, a two-day long, tortuous degradation of humanity. Now, if I am supposed to be doing some sort of research to make Goddamn sure this is all true (I had ASSUMED that snopes did that for me when it said 'true story') before I expose my 'justified rage' well, my bad, dude. I apologize for not 'establishing any actual facts' before I started spouting off. Still doesn't change, one iota, how I feel.
• I just got back from court and I was sitting right next to where there was a defendant making his first appearance for firt degree murder. He was very small. Maybe he was five-four or so and 135 pounds. He had a very, very youthful face. He was 17 years old. The youthful face and body size made him look 13 or 14. Since he is charged with first degree murder and he is in North Carolina, the state can decide to ask for the death penalty if they want to. It is way too early to have any idea what they will ultimately do. He lives here in town, and his parents were not even at his first appearance. We can speculate as to what kind of home life this kid has had. The murder was possibly gang-related. Again, we can speculate about how a kid that young and young-looking from a horrific upbringing might find himself holding a gun in some gang-related conflict. So should we kill him? I doubt the DA will go that route. He looks like a child. A jury would probably want no part of that. So if subjective factors like youthful appearance can be a reason not to pursue the death penalty, then how can we reasonably have the death penalty at all? We had a case a few years back in which an intern with the DA's office said that the prosecuting DA on a death penalty case told the intern that the state was pursuing the death penalty against this particular defendant in part because of the race of the defendant. The DA told him that because the last few death penalty prosecutions involved defendants who were black, it was important to pursue the death penalty against someone who was white so the DA's office would not be viewed as racist. I don't know the what the conversation between that intern and the DA really was, but you are delusional if you think that considerations like that do not go into death penalty decisions. I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases because I don't feel that the government should kill peopole. But even if I was not opposed on that basis, I would be vehemently opposed on the grounds that the death penalty is not and cannot be carried out in any objective, fair fashion.
• I'm am welping. Could you give a little welp, then? I need to exit this thread quickly: do I go through the eye of the needle or around the elephant?
• The DA told him that because the last few death penalty prosecutions involved defendants who were black, it was important to pursue the death penalty against someone who was white so the DA's office would not be viewed as racist. That's so fucking tragically ironic and counter-virtuous my head is swimming.

• I wouldn't defend any existing system of capital punishment, but I do think that in theory it may be right, and possibly even a duty, to edit certain monsters out of humanity - if we want to set some lower limit to what counts as properly human.

  Remember, there is always a non-zero chance that any given person executed is innocent (in practice it is very much higher than zero). This means that any system of capital punishment will inevitably execute the innocent. You can't separate the theory from practice when you're talking about human institutions.
• Remember, there is always a non-zero chance that any given person executed is innocent... How does this work in reality?
• if I am supposed to be doing some sort of research to make Goddamn sure this is all true Darshon, my point is merely that a trial would be a better way of doing that than snopes. "Skip the trial - there shouldn't even be one, put them away FOREVER"; and "in this hypothetical story I hypothetically believe they, the sociopaths, deserve to be taken out." Perhaps they do. Why not have a trial first? But I apologise for taking an unwarranted and poorly put swipe at you, D.
• This means that any system of capital punishment will inevitably execute the innocent. Given enough time, of course. What that period is, however, is of some debate. As a death penalty proponent, I want innocents executed even less than you do, for if an innocent man is demonstrably put to death, the injustice is compounded (one dead unjestly, one guilty man free) and, for me, capital punishment hinges on the idea of appropriate justice. And it seems likely that capital punishment will be ended in the US, and I don't want that to occur. I have to admit that it's probably true that, at some point, an innocent man has been executed. HOWEVER, I contend that such incidences are, in light of current safeguards, very very rare. And executions do not occur with any regularity. To ban capital punishment on the statiscally possible chance of a mistake is similar, to my mind, of banning physics research at CERN on the statiscally possible chance of accidentally creating a small black hole that destroys the world. Better instead to enact vigorous safeguards to reduce the likelihood of error to as close to zero as is humanly possible.
• I don't have the figures in front of me, but Russ Feingold claimed in 2000 that 1 in 7 sentences of death had subsequently been overturned (see Feingold speech. Keep in mind that these are only the detected cases of wrongful conviction. He also cites the Radelet and Bedau study which found that from 1900 until 1985 there were 23 cases where innocents were executed. The point is that these all under-represent the actual rates of wrongful conviction since dead men and women aren't there to help in their own exonerations.
• I don't think it is primarily important to preserve the rights of the perp for the perp, but for the society. if we condemn murder, yet commit it ourselves, in what we can see is a pretty arbitrary system, well, that just doesn't make sense to me. are you (any particular monkey out there) ready to draw the lines as to which monsters we "edit out"? are you ready to decide 'yes, this one should die'? would you be willing to throw the switch yourself? from what I understand executions cost more tax payer dollars than life incarceration, so that argument may be invalid. the real elephant in the room is that we live in a culture that chooses to deny responsibility for the creation of these monsters, much less looking at those causes and doing what we can to "fix" them and evolve into a healthier society that is less apt to create such horrible monsters. /hopelessly idealistic
• Actually I often fantasise about executing many of you people - often for relatively trivial offences.
• Wrongful conviction does not necessarily mean innocence in the strictest sense of the word. Admittedly, I have not delved into the subject with any depth, but the incidences of overturned death row convictions I have seen (again, admittedly few) had invariably turned on procedural error or reversal of witness testimony. These do not, to me, fill me with overweening confidence in these men's actual innocence of the crime. In any event, advocates for and against capital punishment are overwhelmingly firmly entrenched in their positions. I have stated my personal opinion and justification thereon several times previously here, and am unlikely to be swayed to abandon that position save for on condition: the assurance that a person convicted of life in prison has no possibility of escape, release or opportunity to victimize again. Until those criteria are met by the justice system, I will continue to support capital punishment. My post here was simply to state my belief that it is better to repair what's broken with capital punishment than to ban it altogether. With all respect, I've no desire to debate the rights/wrongs of the practice in general. are you (any particular monkey out there) ready to draw the lines as to which monsters we "edit out"? are you ready to decide 'yes, this one should die'? would you be willing to throw the switch yourself? I have, and while it's unlikely to occur, I think that I would be capable of throwing the switch.
• E.g: 1. Fes crime - name too short sentence - death by rack 2. Medusa crime - hopelessly idealistic sentence - death by poisonous snakes tied to hair 3. InsolentChimp crime - insolence sentence - death by shooting into the sun (in-Sol-ence - geddit?)
• *breathes sigh of relief, kisses lucky penny*
• crime - coin-fucker sentence - death by insertion into vending machine
• ...The point is that these all under-represent the actual rates of wrongful conviction since dead men and women aren't there to help in their own exonerations. I understand much of this (not the Feingold Speech part, which I'll take a look at), but I don't understand the physics or math of the non-zero chance you mentioned. The one in eight thing is significant in the under-representation of innocents on death row, but when someone is guilty there is a zero chance that they are innocent, no? So how could there always be a non-zero chance in the system when dealing with death row crime? How does that work? On a side note, aren't the releases and pardons coming in the light of DNA technology that wasn't available during the original trials but is readily available now?
• I'd like you to change my crime to royal insolence, you king of twits.
• re: DNA - that is possible. If so, I am heartened by it, for that would be far more definitive than mere courtroom procedural technicality or the persuading of witnesses to change testimony years out from the event.
• if we condemn murder, yet commit it ourselves... That sounds reasonable, but actually the state quite properly does all sorts of things to us which would be wrong if we tried to do them to other people. Think of taxes.
• It's a "breeder" thing. Not always so. I will have to do some digging, but I recall a case where a mother and father lost their young daughter - she was brutally murdered. Even faced with such a trememdous loss in their lives, they spoke out against the death penalty during the trial. Here's another case I just found. Emmett "Bud" Welch, 65, whose daughter, Julie Marie, died in the blast, has found his own way to deal with the pain. The bombing turned Welch, a former gas station owner, into an international crusader against the death penalty and human rights violations. "I forgave Tim McVeigh before he died," Welch said. "I don't think everyone has to forgive, but if you are able to do it, the feeling you get in your heart is tremendous. I am at peace."
• excuse the typos
• I think that I would be capable of throwing the switch. I wonder how you would feel afterwards?
• sugarmilktea crime - typos sentence - death by immersion into vat of white-oute
• *huffs quick-dry white out and prepares self*
• crime - hypociticism sentence - paltry fine of no consequence
• It's just a thought experiment of sorts, but here's the reasoning: P = probability that an offender is not factually guilty of the crime for which they have been convicted. P is a value from 0 (not wrongful convictions) to 1 (all wrongful convictions) n = number of convictions nP = number of wrongful convictions P thus represents the false-positive failure rate of the criminal justice system in death penalty cases. As the police, the courts, judges, and juries are all human institutions. They will inevitably make mistakes. This means that, at least notionally, P will always be non-zero.
• ...for that would be far more definitive than mere courtroom procedural technicality or the persuading of witnesses to change testimony years out from the event. The Feingold speech linked above isn't so optimistic about DNA saying that snitches lie, institutional racism remains (in odd manifestations, too: see bernockle's hearsay above) and I suppose you could add that confusion of the evidence with the events could always take place in which a murder for the sake of self defense appeared otherwise without witnesses.
• The corollary of this reasoning is that for every person put to death, nP will be wrongfully killed. Since P can never be zero, advocating the death penalty is tantamount to advocating for the killing these people. If you support it, you've got to sleep with that.
• I wonder how you would feel afterwards? I can't imagine it would be pleasant. I've always believed that capital punishment was an ugly but necessary job. My feelings would be something that I would have to overcome in order to do my duty to the rest of you - because that is exactly what pulling the switch would be: doing an ugly but necessary job on behalf of the potential further victims of whomever was being executed. It is my duty, a part of my social contract with the rest of you, to be responsible to the rest of you and defend you and yours from harm as you would be expected to defend me and mine. I'm no bloodthirsty animal. But if it comes down to either my pulling the switch or a murderer is loosed to victimize again? I will pull the switch.
• sfred crime - math geekiness sentence - death by quartering
• If you support it, you've got to sleep with that. I understand that. I hope that you understand that there is a reverse to that - by not advocating the death penalty, every murderer that avoids the death penalty and victimizes a cell mate, or is returned to the world and murders again? A teeny bit of that blood rests on your pillow at night. I mean that sympathetically, sfred. There are no good answers here, no white hats.
• This means that, at least notionally, P will always be non-zero. Ah, I see what you mean now, as long as one 1 exists in an infinite sea of 0s. However, the assertion of an always non-zero isn't that strong. We may always make mistakes but for utilitarian purposes a P value of 0.00001 might be seen as insignificant, especially if the incidents which gave it a non-zero value existed in the distant past of the institution.
• the quidnunc kid crime - chortling sentence - death by rebirth
• quid, no apology necessary, at all. I enjoy the lively debate and harbour no bad feelings about different views. Also, I should note, I can say these things because our justice system does exist. I may not always agree with it, often I don't, but it affords me the freedom to shout out my rage and anger knowing that their rights will still be held up. In the end, on a really good day, I may be okay with that.
• Fes - I understand your point. There is always a tradeoff between liberty and safety. The jury trial, the right to a full defense, and limitations on police powers have let far more murderers go on to murder again than has substituting life in prison for the death penalty.
• by not advocating the death penalty, every murderer that avoids the death penalty and victimizes a cell mate, or is returned to the world and murders again? I know of no states where First Degree Murder is not life in prison without parole. Murderers who get out and murder again were convicted of Second Degree Murder. They would not have been death penalty eligible anyway. As for the killing of another cell mate, I think that is an easy fix for the state. The state needs to imprison lifers with lifers only. If possible, allow no interaction. Certainly allow no unsupervised interaction. It would be very easy to make sure that a person convicted of first degree murder would have no interaction with people who are not similarly situated.
• Darshon crime - lovliness sentence - (slow) death by quidnunc kisses
• InsolentChimp - you're right, but we all know that it's way higher.
• The jury trial, the right to a full defense, and limitations on police powers have let far more murderers go on to murder again than has substituting life in prison for the death penalty. Perhaps. But we agree that the benefits of jury trial, vigorous defense, and limits on police powers are beneficial. However, we are talking not about those *charged*, but those convicted - not once, but at least twice, since capital cases are automatically appealed. The tradeoff between liberty and security is superceded - a convicted murderer has no right to liberty, but society has not similarly given up its right to be secure. All that remains is to ensure the safety of those that would be in peril were he to be released. And, in my opinion, we worry too little, comparatively, about that. The state needs to imprison lifers with lifers only. A proposal with merit. But is it enough?
• If it were the case that the death penalty deterred murderers (just to entertain the possibility), then those who prevent the death penalty being imposed would be complicit (on the presumed notion of complicity) in the deaths of those who get murdered by the non-deterred murderers. So it may be that you cannot escape complicity in someone's death either way - you can only choose to be complicit in the death of the innocent or the guilty. Well, that's a pretty damn big "if." And it goes against the overwhelming majority of research. And the principle of double effect would be , er, in effect, wouldn't it? Also, what bernockle said.
• Murderers who get out and murder again were convicted of Second Degree Murder. You may all stand aghast, but I am also of the opinion that 2nd Degree Murder (to which I assume crimes of passion, etc - I'm not an attorney) ought to be capital in certain circumstances as well. Rape, too. As far as the deterrent effect of capital punishment, it's a fallacy and a trap. I acknowledge no deterrent effect in my defense of capital punishment, and wish other advocates would do the same, for we always end up on the shit side of the stick when we argue deterrence.
• The tradeoff between liberty and security is superceded - a convicted murderer has no right to liberty, but society has not similarly given up its right to be secure. OK, now this is a strictly utilitarian argument and the question of whether the death penalty reduces the rate of violent crime can't be avoided, as TUM says. So, if you get no security in exchange, then your argument fails.
• quidnunc crime - kissing Darshon sentence - death by snu snu
• The security argument may avoid the deterrence fallacy thus: By executing a murderer, society is completely secure from any further crimes that particular murderer may commit. An utter deterrence of one, if you will. I contend that this is sufficient benefit to warrant the death penalty. Then in addition, there is the concept that certain crimes are so egregious that the only punishment that approaches justice is ther death penalty. That is retributive, but it is also, to my mind, separate from the issue of security.
• What you are arguing is called incapacitation in the literature. It fails because a true life sentence is almost equally incapacitating, without the inevitable risk of a wrongful execution. You just can't make a valid utilitarian argument for execution without using deterrence. Beyond that we're left with some sort of retributive argument, that is glorified revenge. And such is the nature of capital punishment. It coarsens the discourse and takes us back to pre-modern revenge fantasies.
• It is also worth pointing out that murder is a crime with one of the lowest recidivism rates of all of them.
• Parole Board chairman: They've got a name for people like you H.I. That name is called "recidivism." Parole Board member: Repeat offender! Parole Board chairman: Not a pretty name, is it H.I.? H.I.: No, sir. That's one bonehead name, but that ain't me any more. Parole Board chairman: You're not just telling us what we want to hear? H.I.: No, sir, no way. Parole Board member: 'Cause we just want to hear the truth. H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear. Parole Board chairman: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that? H.I.: Yes, sir. Parole Board chairman: Okay, then.
• It fails because a true life sentence is almost equally incapacitating, without the inevitable risk of a wrongful execution I don't agree, for a true life sentence, so far as I can tell, doesn't exist. Even the lifer may prey upon those around him, most of whom have not committed similar crimes. I've stated before: when teh justice system can deliver a life sentence that TRULY precludes the possibility of parole, escape or vicitimization of others? I will rescind my support for the death penalty. Beyond that we're left with some sort of retributive argument, that is glorified revenge. Much is made of the barbaric aspect of "mere" retribution, but is not the ENTIRETY of the criminal justice system based on extracting punitative recompense on behalf of society from criminals for breaking society's laws - the very definition of retribution? Why suddenly do we get so squeamish when that recompense is the life of the violator? Do we not agree that some crimes - like the ones described in this post! - are such heinous affronts that there is only one possible punishment that even approaches what we might consider justice? And isn't justice what the entire system is trying to obtain? It is also worth pointing out that murder is a crime with one of the lowest recidivism rates of all of them. Yet one of the highest per incidence levels of suffering for the victims.
• We are slipping into a debate on the essence of the capital punishment, you and I :) I have my doubts that either of us is capable of filling the other's entrenchments on this subject.
• You've lost me somewhat there, roryk - there are people who are in favour of the death penalty in all circumstances? For everybody? My impression is that there's: 1. a group of people in favour of the death penalty under existing legislation or, if they're in the EU, they're in favour of it in theory 2. a group of people against the death penalty under existing legislation or in theory 3. a group of people who are in principle against the death penalty but would allow it for particularly heinous crimes. Actually, the more I think about it and read this thread, the more groups I see. But I'm sticking to 3 for the moment. Positions 1 and 2 are understandable to me, but I don't get position 3 because it leads to value judgements that I do not think society is ready to make.
• Yet one of the highest per incidence levels of suffering for the victims. I should point out that in one study of 2900 Canadian homicide offenders, including 658 convicted of first or second degree murder between 1975 and 1990, the number who were convicted of killing again was zero. That's right, zero. So, there was no suffering for future murder victims from this particular cohort of murderers.
• Were they released? Or are we talking about zero convictions for in-prison murders, where the ability of law enforcement to gather evidence and testimony is severly hampered? And are we talking about convicted murderers committing crimes other than murder? Rape perhaps. Assaults. Gang activities. These are not crimes that are suffering-free.
• Like I mentioned earlier, I don't think there is an argument you can make that will persuade me to switch sides, nor one I could make that would persuade you.
• Yes, these are offenders who were released. In-prison murders are exceedingly rare in Canada (and much less common in the US than most people think). We are slipping into a debate on the essence of the capital punishment, you and I :) I have my doubts that either of us is capable of filling the other's entrenchments on this subject. Sure, Fes, and I'm sure that's true. My point isn't really to change your mind, but rather to demonstrate that the reasons you and most others hold onto capital punishment are for reasons outside it's efficaciousness in reducing crime, because the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that it has little or no effect on violent crime rates. There are other reasons for supporting the death penalty that center on retributive notions, and that's fine, although I tend to disagree with them for the reasons I've given previously.
• All this serious discussion is getting in the way of quidnunc's death sentences.
• demonstrate that the reasons you and most others hold onto capital punishment are for reasons outside it's efficaciousness in reducing crime, because the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that it has little or no effect on violent crime rates. In this, you and I agree, which is why I studiously avoid making the deterrence argument, which I think (as do you) is false, excepting, as I mentioned, the deterrence of one. So, perhaps it comes back to the idea that (a) that I believe some crimes are too horrible to go unpunished by anything but the death of the perpetrator and (b) I believe we each have an obligation to each other, when a person shows themselves to be a murderer, to "edit them out" of our society. Which are moral arguments, not factual ones, and thornier because of it.
• sentence - (slow) death by quidnunc kisses *swoons, waves goodbye to husband, buys ticket to London.
• Off to find the other quarter. Presumably it's already at the pub.
• Ménage à quatre, quoi?
• I think the prospect of the electric chair would deter me a little: but maybe I haven't the moral fibre of your average potential murderer.
• IN NZ recently, a man who had been jailed for armed robbery (in which someone may or may not have been killed, I don't remember now) was paroled and immediately broke his parole conditions and fled into the bush, where he killed an innocent bystander. He's back in prison for life (no death penalty here to argue over), but the interesting thing was that after the shootout with police, the man wound up having a leg amputated. Theoretically that would be fairly effective. Dismemberment for all!
• sentence - (slow) death by quidnunc kisses It's cruel, but oddly, not unusual. I'm mostly against the death penalty for what it makes us when we do it, I think. Once society has reached a certain level of sophistication, it seems wrong to resort to such measures and on balance more likely to contribute to the overall level of violence in society. I have less problem with, say, a partisan group shooting a traitor where incarceration or other options aren't available. Just so long as there were no illusions about moral rightness.
• Ummm..... tracicle
• Unarmed... HAH!
• The Black Knight always triumphs! Have at you!
• What you are arguing is called incapacitation in the literature. It fails because a true life sentence is almost equally incapacitating, without the inevitable risk of a wrongful execution. You just can't make a valid utilitarian argument for execution without using deterrence. Yet repeat offense (including within correctional facilities) also follows your non-zero rules. And I agree about the rates of P being recorded much higher than I suggested, but the use of those probabilities is akin to the use of a racing form especially if you can treat statistics with a dose of Humean skepticism. The chances of wrongful conviction are reduced to zero when an individual is rightfully convicted and increase to one when a person is wrongfully convicted according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, there isn't always a non-zero chance, that's only a statistical observation of an overall historical pattern. This doesn't reduce those who die from wrongful conviction (aside: how often does this happen?) but it does severely cripple the "always" rhetoric. Further, the P values returned from current systems are fluid and do not necessarily have to reflect the statistics of the past. Don't get me wrong, I'm not actually for the death penalty, but I'm not entirely convinced I should be against it.
• Wow! That's a lot of worms for just one can! Last time I shop for FPPs at Costco. Oh, and I'm not reading the responses any more, cause, you know, (79 new). But, I'm sure that each of you is wrong in your own wonderfully unique way!
• And how!
• Imagine that your child is falsely accused of an horrific crime. Does that change your perspective? It would be awful. I would try to hold fast to the ideal of a fair trial within a just society. And I'd cry and swear and pray, because if anything could make me want to believe in a God, this would be it. But if my child were convicted of a horrific crime, of this crime, they would no longer be my child. I would relinquish them to their punishment, as they would repudiate their own humanity in committing such evil. Yeah, it's tough being an idealist in the real, gritty, lopsided world. I stand with Fes; however, electrocution is a sensationalized method of capitol punishment. At this point, I believe that putting a prisoner under anesthesia and then administering a death-dealing dose of drugs is the only "humane" way to put a murderer to death. Humane is certainly an ironic word to use in that sentence. I could administer the sterile drip that would kill whoever tortured Newsome and Christian. It would be with sorrow and a feeling of failure that our society had come to that point, but it would also be with the conviction that their actions had removed them from any consideration of mercy. Take a moment to re-read what happened to Newsome and Christian. Could a human being with ANY moral compass do such a thing? I can understand that a young man feeling an interior lack of self could be sucked into trying to prove his manhood by showing a gang of boys that he's big enough and tough enough to shoot someone. I can understand that a man could knife his wife's lover in a moment of rage and jealousy. God help me, I can understand that a young woman could shake her baby to death in a moment of frustration and insecurity. I could attempt to stretch understanding toward two people who fight over money or possessions, and one pulls a gun in resentment or greed. But I cannot understand a mind that could cold-bloodedly plan and execute the type of horror that these people committed. This wasn't a moment's impulse, born of human emotions and passions, this torture went on for HOURS. These acts are the personification of evil. the real elephant in the room is that we live in a culture that chooses to deny responsibility for the creation of these monsters, much less looking at those causes and doing what we can to "fix" them and evolve into a healthier society that is less apt to create such horrible monsters Taking the millions of dollars spent to warehouse the monsters and putting it toward feeding, housing, and EDUCATING our children would be a step toward a healthier society. As a society, we need to cherish, love, and protect our children. I know, I know. Yaddayaddayadda, think of the children. But I ask you, where else can we start? If we taught our children to love one another and to treat each other as precious beings, wouldn't that make a difference?
• I'm with Mr. Danger. I need to stop reading and posting. There's too much energy and emotion going into this debate, and I'd like to take a bit of that and think about Christopher Newsome and Channon Christian and their families before I go on with my day. I doubt if these discussions will change anyone's mind. To be truthful, I envy those of you who believe with certitude that there should be no capitol punishment. You have no case-by-case decisions to be made, and no agonizing about the definition of justice and the application of penalty for wrongdoing. Punishment proceeds on the principle that there is an eternal distinction between right and wrong, and that this distinction must be maintained for its own sake. It is not primarily intended for the reformation of criminals, nor for the purpose of deterring others from sin. These results may be gained, but crime in itself demands punishment. I have seen the nature of what is good and the ugliness of evil, and I have seen this not only in others but in myself.” – Marcus Aurelius
• Amen, BlueHorse.
• I've really no idea what you mean InsolentChimp. What does the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is about measuring the position and speed of sub-atomic particles, have to do with human behavior? I think, with respect, that you're wrong BlueHorse. Those of us who oppose the death penalty do so for various reasons, but it no way is it easy or straightforward, not does it represent a lack of compassion for the victims, as you have insinuated.
• About as much as math has to do with human behavior. As an object approaches one position the chances of it being anywhere else are reduced eventually to zero, but you're going to lose out on seeing the whole picture.
• sfred, I think you are way off base saying that. Show me where, exactly, she insinuated that those who oppose the death penalty lacked compassion for the victims. Also, if you are opposed to the death penalty, for whatever reason, does that not significantly ease the decision-making in your mind? It seems pretty simple; NO DEATH.
• Darshon, it isn't really important, and in general I agree with her that we should probably call it a day, but here's how I read her posting: First, BlueHorse suggested that we should better focus on thinking about the couple killed here. She then doesn't do that, but instead immediately writes about how some crimes demand punishment. Since she's been supporting the death penalty, the implication is in the juxtaposition. It's probably not intentional, but it is a fairly standard rhetorical form. You're probably right in the notion that juries are more likely to convict when the death penalty is off the table. However I'm not sure that opposing the death penalty in general is the easier position than supporting it in general terms. InsolentChimp: I'm still not entirely sure what you're getting at, but it sounds like you're using Hiezenberg to suggest that at some point we do have absolute knowledge in the context of an individual case, but that simply isn't true. Even if we have a confession we still have some degree of doubt about the verdict (there are numerous examples of false confessions, even in the absence of coercion). That degree of doubt can be expressed mathematically or it can be expressed in language as 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' for example. In general applying analogies from the natural science to the social sciences is very dangerous, see The Social Text Affair for an extreme example. I would suggest that math is a useful tool for understanding human behavior, but physics is not. I think this has been an interesting discussion, but it's probably time for me to call it a day.
• Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this, too. I'm not trying to get the last word here but to clarify the confusion: I wasn't suggesting our knowledge of what happened, I was suggesting the real events. In real events, there isn't a non-zero chance of innocence when the accused is really (literally - not a form of exaggeration) guilty. I don't think math is any more useful a tool for understanding events than quantum physics. If these events manifest in what you would call human behavior so be it, but the event of guilt or innocence (which occurs at the moment of the crime: one or more persons become guilty while the rest of the world becomes innocent of that particular crime) is an all or nothing phenomenon that has a definite zero innocence result for the individual(s) who committed the crime. I'd shy away from calling this guilt or innocence. The H.U.P. is also important to remember because it illustrates with subatomic particles that unavoidable biases exist (therefore, you might illustrate that there is a non-zero P value of biases in the human knowledge base). Saying that we can't reflect on these lessons through cross-disciplinary studies is fine, but I think it is a silly assertion when we aren't making a leap of faith in the manner of the New Age cult but instead searching for the epistemologies of western thought. That's all I've been saying. I think what happened is that I took your social statistics game as if you were talking about an essential reality, instead of an abstraction of reality which was reapplied via the legal system.
• Oops, the "but I think it" should be "but I think that is a silly assertion". Stupid dangling modifiers.