Connecticut School Shooting

[Robert]

I read that this firemen murder business has started a "national debate" about gun ownership. Two points :

1. "National debates" aren't national at all - at least, not over here. They're confined to the chattering classes.
2. OK, have a "national debate" about gun ownership, but why not also have a "national debate" about whether it's really wise to release a man who killed his grandmother with a hammer?

[RivkahChaya]

It's a fairly famous commentary on the inherit perils of democracy. As in you can't have two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Pretty much anyone who has studied government or politics has heard of it.

Which, BTW, is why we have the electoral college. The sheep has two electoral votes, the wolves have two electoral votes, and the decision goes to the Supreme Court, which, even if it happens to be composed of five wolves and four sheep, the five wolves are not invited to that particular dinner.

Just on a side note, it did seem strange to me that the BBC and Sky News both lead with the shooting of these two firefighters. They also openly linked it to the school shootings last week (as in the wider gun culture debate in the US). Im not sure if there is some agenda going on here. Would two firefighters being shot in Australia, Germany or South Korea have made headline news in the UK? I doubt it.

Well, probably it would have, but it would have been cast differently; more like "Where the hell did that gun come from?" "Could this happen here? (probably not; we're an island)."

In the United States, people are still in there fighting for their rights as law abiding citizens, because they know that today it's guns and tomorrow it's something else.

That's because most people imagine gun control scenarios along the lines of the Patriot Act (which is so freaking unconstitutional, it makes my teeth crack), where some kind governmental fiat suddenly overrides the constitutional right to a gun, and the police start going door-to-door, collecting them.

That's not what would happen, though. If there ever were some kind of a gun ban, it might involve a constitutional amendment, or revision to the second amendment, that defines "arms" as not including assault weapons, or concealed weapons; or there might be laws limiting the number of bullets a person can purchase in a certain period of time (we limit decongestants, for cripes sake), since a bullet is not "arms," and not technically covered by the second amendment.

You've got to understand that in the case of constitutional revision, it's not going to happen without a lot of time, and without the country generally being in agreement. Look how long it took for the 19th amendment to pass. Even a popular amendment, like the 26th (18-year-old vote) still had to go through the regular ratification process, and took a couple of years to pass, not to mention that the country had been debating the issue since the draft during WWII. Without that debate, and an issue like Vietnam conscription, people would not have already been voting for legislators ready to care about something like the 26th amendment.

In the second case, people do manage to get around laws like that for real necessity. For one thing, you can get a prescription for medication with decongestants that allows you to buy more than whatever the monthly limit is. You can get people to buy it for you, when you need it during allergy season.

If you are target practicing for Olympic trials, you can probably get your friends to buy bullets for you, or you can bypass laws by getting them at the shooting range you go to (where there probably won't be limits, you just can't take more than the limit off the site). However, if you are acting a little nuts, and your friends know you are fomenting a grudge, or you don't have any friends, and you are standing outside of Walmart asking strangers to buy bullets for you, probably someone is going to alert security, and then the law is working just like it should.

[Stephen Thomas]

It's a fairly famous commentary on the inherent perils of democracy. As in you can't have two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Pretty much anyone who has studied government or politics has heard of it.

Thanks Ally. Never heard that one before.

I'm an enlightened despotism fan myself.

[Robert]

Hi Stephen

The trouble with that is, any enlightened despot will spend a certain percentage of his time being unenlightened, and even stupid. But because it's a despotism,there's no one to tell him No.

[Errata]

Never doubted it.

I'm not particularly switched on with modern US politics, but I do know that the democratic states tend to exist in the North and on the two coasts; and that like any other Western nation there are liberal and conservative elements within US society.

Personally, I don't hold a strong opinion on the matter - I can see strengths and weaknesses in both options. My only point was to say that polls in England suggest the majority would like to see hanging re-instated.

This is actually the only major issue I've ever changed my mind about. I tend to be consistent in my views because I educate myself on he before forming an opinion, so I'm rarely presented with an argument I'm not already familiar with. But a friend of mine turned me around it. And not for any moral reason, and maybe I should be ashamed of that. But I didn't support the death penalty for any moral reason either. My thought was that if the victim's family wants the guy dead, they have the right to ask for execution. I don't know if I would, but since it isn't much of a deterrent, and we recognize that there are people who will never successfully be reintegrated into any society, then really it's just a disposal mechanism sanctioned by law that may have the advantage of bringing some closure to the families.

But a friend of mine's sister was killed in the early 80's. Her killer fled to Italy, and they won't extradite him because we have the death penalty. She doesn't particularly care if he's dead or alive, as long as he is convicted by a court of law. And she can't have that. Which was something I hadn't thought of before. If I don't much care about the death penalty, and I don't, then on an international scale, I have to decide what is more important. Killers being brought to justice, or killers being executed. Because in at least some circumstances, the two are mutually exclusive. And I think if this Connecticut shooter had run, and made it to Canada, there would have been a fight, because Canada has issues extraditing someone who could be executed. And how pissed off would we all be if Canada wouldn't give him to us so we could prosecute? So maybe the death penalty isn't conducive to justice. Not in that death is bad kind of way, but in that it makes our extradition relationships more awkward than is worth it.

[RivkahChaya]

This is actually the only major issue I've ever changed my mind about. I tend to be consistent in my views because I educate myself on he before forming an opinion, so I'm rarely presented with an argument I'm not already familiar with.

You may already be familiar with the argument, but for non-US posters, the way things are not, it costs a heap more money to execute someone in the US than to imprison someone for life, even when life is around 50 years. Part of that has to do with the expense of the appeals process, and part of that has to do with the fact that death row inmates are not allowed to have prison jobs that contribute to their upkeep (nor earn money to spend in commissaries, so any money they have must be sent by family members). They get usually an hour outside each day. Some people think that kind of confinement and segregation alone is "cruel and unusual," but it is considered necessary, because people on death row have a lot less to lose, and are much more likely to assault other prisoners or guards, or make escape attempts, if they are in the general population. (They're also more likely to be regarded as "expendable" by other prisoners and guards.)

Justice John Paul Stevens of the US Supreme Court, a Ford appointee, but general a liberal-leaning justice, voted to withdraw the US death penalty moratorium in 1976 (Gregg v. Georgia). Since his retirement in 2010 (replaced by Justice Kagan) Stevens has spoken out a great deal against the death penalty as it is currently used, and has said that many things which happen now when people are sentenced are things he specifically intended NOT to happen when he voted to reinstate the death penalty.

One of those things is "victim impact statements," where family and friends of the victim make emotional appeals to the jury before sentencing.

"Victim impact" has no place in determining sentencing, which should be about the nature of the crime, and the future of the criminal-- whether he has a future outside the system, or whether he can be productive within the system, for example. Some people can't "make it" on the outside, but function very well in a highly supervised environment, and are productive in minimal security prisons, earning college degrees, teaching classes to other prisoners (who may end up being released themselves), and holding down jobs within the prison that essentially earn their keep. It may not be an ideal life, but it certainly is better than death, in my opinion, even if it's just breaking even, on the state ledgers. I don't believe in karma, but I do think the deliberate taking of life in any form reduces us all.

Another thing that really bothers me about victim impact is that it implies that a victim who for whatever reason didn't not have family or friends to provide a statement, is somehow worth less. I find that loathsome.

But yes, your point about extradition is very good. I know a lot of Americans who will say that France (Ira Einhorn), Canada, or Italy's opinions on the death penalty are not our problem, but clearly, they are, if people can escape justice like this.

[Robert]

Just a question, and i suppose this has to be pitched at the state level because you folks have these state governments : within the states that have either abolished capital punishment, or allow endless appeals which make capital punishment virtually impossible, are there within those states majorities for or against the death penalty? (and likewise for the states that have it). In other words, is public opinion being followed here, or defied?

[Ally]

But a friend of mine's sister was killed in the early 80's. Her killer fled to Italy, and they won't extradite him because we have the death penalty. She doesn't particularly care if he's dead or alive, as long as he is convicted by a court of law. And she can't have that. Which was something I hadn't thought of before. If I don't much care about the death penalty, and I don't, then on an international scale, I have to decide what is more important. Killers being brought to justice, or killers being executed. Because in at least some circumstances, the two are mutually exclusive. And I think if this Connecticut shooter had run, and made it to Canada, there would have been a fight, because Canada has issues extraditing someone who could be executed. And how pissed off would we all be if Canada wouldn't give him to us so we could prosecute? So maybe the death penalty isn't conducive to justice. Not in that death is bad kind of way, but in that it makes our extradition relationships more awkward than is worth it.

This is not really accurate. Lots of killers flee to countries, all the prosecutor has to do is agree not seek the death penalty in that case and they will be extradited. The Canadian case that decided no extradition ended up with the killers being sent here anyway after the prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty. Prosecutors have discretion in how they try a case, either as a capital or non-capital offense case.

So there is never realistically a case where having the death penalty as an option would absolutely prevent a criminal from being brought to justice, unless the prosecutor is an absolute idiot.

[RivkahChaya]

So there is never realistically a case where having the death penalty as an option would absolutely prevent a criminal from being brought to justice, unless the prosecutor is an absolute idiot.

It took a long time to get Ira Einhorn extradited from France, and he had been tried in absentia, and not given the death penalty, but the French police, or whoever (I've forgotten the title) who was holding him fought the extradition, believing he would be retired, and the death penalty sought. It is true that people tried in absentia are often retried, but generally it is at the request of the defendant.

Also, a note on trials in absentia in the US. Generally, they are unconstitutional, because a person has the right to confront his accuser. In the case of Einhorn, he skipped bail after the jury had been seated and the trial begun. This is construed as voluntarily giving up the right to confront his accuser, and is different from proceeding to try someone who has not even been apprehended.

Yes, if a prosecutor agrees to waive the death penalty as part of extradition, he would be stupid to go back on that, because other people will not trust him (or her) in the future, but an international treaty like that is not necessarily binding, because there is no enforcement body. Also, a lot of things can happen. District attorneys are elected. One DA can make the extradition treaty, but a different DA can end up trying the case, and that DA will not necessarily feel bound by an ad hoc extradition agreement. Or, the Federal government can step in and take jurisdiction in certain cases; in those cases, the federal trial does not have to honor a state agreement, and can seek the death penalty.

[jason_c]

You may already be familiar with the argument, but for non-US posters, the way things are not, it costs a heap more money to execute someone in the US than to imprison someone for life, even when life is around 50 years. Part of that has to do with the expense of the appeals process, and part of that has to do with the fact that death row inmates are not allowed to have prison jobs that contribute to their upkeep (nor earn money to spend in commissaries, so any money they have must be sent by family members). They get usually an hour outside each day. Some people think that kind of confinement and segregation alone is "cruel and unusual," but it is considered necessary, because people on death row have a lot less to lose, and are much more likely to assault other prisoners or guards, or make escape attempts, if they are in the general population. (They're also more likely to be regarded as "expendable" by other prisoners and guards.)

Justice John Paul Stevens of the US Supreme Court, a Ford appointee, but general a liberal-leaning justice, voted to withdraw the US death penalty moratorium in 1976 (Gregg v. Georgia). Since his retirement in 2010 (replaced by Justice Kagan) Stevens has spoken out a great deal against the death penalty as it is currently used, and has said that many things which happen now when people are sentenced are things he specifically intended NOT to happen when he voted to reinstate the death penalty.

One of those things is "victim impact statements," where family and friends of the victim make emotional appeals to the jury before sentencing.

"Victim impact" has no place in determining sentencing, which should be about the nature of the crime, and the future of the criminal-- whether he has a future outside the system, or whether he can be productive within the system, for example. Some people can't "make it" on the outside, but function very well in a highly supervised environment, and are productive in minimal security prisons, earning college degrees, teaching classes to other prisoners (who may end up being released themselves), and holding down jobs within the prison that essentially earn their keep. It may not be an ideal life, but it certainly is better than death, in my opinion, even if it's just breaking even, on the state ledgers. I don't believe in karma, but I do think the deliberate taking of life in any form reduces us all.

Another thing that really bothers me about victim impact is that it implies that a victim who for whatever reason didn't not have family or friends to provide a statement, is somehow worth less. I find that loathsome.

But yes, your point about extradition is very good. I know a lot of Americans who will say that France (Ira Einhorn), Canada, or Italy's opinions on the death penalty are not our problem, but clearly, they are, if people can escape justice like this.

There's not one single mention of the victim in this highlighted passage. You do mention "nature of the crime" but this is an airy fairy way of hinting at any iota of sympathy for the victim. I think this tells us where your priorities lie. Should victim impact be the deciding factor in sentencing? No. However, it is quite reasonable to take such a factor into account.

I also read no mention of justice, punishment or deterrence; all of which are part of the judicial and prison systems.

[Errata]

This is not really accurate. Lots of killers flee to countries, all the prosecutor has to do is agree not seek the death penalty in that case and they will be extradited. The Canadian case that decided no extradition ended up with the killers being sent here anyway after the prosecutors agreed not to seek the death penalty. Prosecutors have discretion in how they try a case, either as a capital or non-capital offense case.

So there is never realistically a case where having the death penalty as an option would absolutely prevent a criminal from being brought to justice, unless the prosecutor is an absolute idiot.

From what I understand, the prosecutor was in fact an idiot (I mean, I know the guy he is a braying jackass of a man, and in this case professionally brain dead. He has since been disbarred), the criminal in question was 16 when he killed this little girl, and 17 when extradition first came up, and had Italian grandparents and was pursuing citizenship. Which was eventually denied, but he disappeared somewhere along the way. He may not still be there. It is true that it isn't an issue often. But if one of the times it was an issue, and it was Ted Bundy with 30 something victims, then that would be a huge deal to a lot of people.

Rivkah - One of the victories of victim impact statements has been higher conviction rates and longer sentences for people who murder sex workers. It was not at all unusual for a guy to get a couple of years for killing a prostitute, juries and judges being perfectly willing to accept that the life of a whore was worth less than the life of a suburban housewife. With victim impact statements, juries became educated about who becomes prostitutes and why. Grieving families and grieving children could combat the notion that these women were little more than walking vaginas. It's helped a lot. It's still not totally equal, but the difference in sentencing has come way down.

[RivkahChaya]

Rivkah - One of the victories of victim impact statements has been higher conviction rates and longer sentences for people who murder sex workers. It was not at all unusual for a guy to get a couple of years for killing a prostitute, juries and judges being perfectly willing to accept that the life of a whore was worth less than the life of a suburban housewife. With victim impact statements, juries became educated about who becomes prostitutes and why. Grieving families and grieving children could combat the notion that these women were little more than walking vaginas. It's helped a lot. It's still not totally equal, but the difference in sentencing has come way down.

We shouldn't need victim impact statements for that. That should have been the case already. And victim impact statements are read during the sentencing phase, after conviction. Death penalty cases are the only cases where the penalty is decided by a jury. Otherwise, it is imposed by a judge, and anymore is often statutory (eg, "three strikes and you're in"), so a judge has very little discretion. If juries are more educated about the lives of sex workers, I think it's a general thing, and has as much to do with the media, as it does with victim impact statements; no victim impact statement regarding the victim in question has any direct effect on any conviction. And sometimes penalty phase victim impact statements degrade into families screaming obscenities at the now-convicted defendant. I can't believe that does anyone any good.

As much as I hate the really stupid movie Pretty Woman, which I will never stop thinking is one of the worst movies ever made, it did change the public attitude toward sex workers. It unfortunately romanticized it, rather than giving people a realistic idea of it, but if thinking of the victim as Julia Roberts helped get convictions is prostitute murder (or rape) cases, I think that's a good thing. Also, I understand the sometimes didactic and cloying Law & Order: SVU, a spin-off of one of the best TV shows ever, has changed people's views of both sex workers and rape victims. It unfortunately falls into the Hollywood "attractive rape victim" trap, even while telling us every episode that rape isn't about sex, but, it's a TV show, so there you are.

[Errata]

We shouldn't need victim impact statements for that. That should have been the case already.

We shouldn't need a lot of things. We shouldn't need a specific law to say that the color or even presence of a victim's underwear cannot be a consideration in cases of rape. We shouldn't even have to consider the very notion of special hate crime legislation. We shouldn't have to educate the public on the warning signs of suicidal or violent behavior, that racist jokes are in fact offensive, that yo don't get to fire a woman for not performing sexual acts with you, or even how babies are made. And yet we do. We humans, and maybe especially Americans are just impervious to certain social truths. When sociology conflicts with psychology, sociology loses every time. There is no reason to assume one human is better than another. Unless it makes you feel better to think that, at which point no amount of evidence is going to change your mind. You have to change the psychology for the sociology to even get a foothold. And I think half of the nation still doesn't believe in psychology. Soo.. really we're looking at a very slow learning curve.

[ChainzCooper]

Did anybody hear about this horrible man that set fire to his neighborhood in New York (there has been no talk about banning fire) then murdered the first responders. I read that this p o s was given only manslaughter for beating someone to death with a hammer in 1981. How is that possible? What an outrageous travesty. We as the public need to demand mandatory minimums (Jessica's law should be in every state) this is the final straw. If you murder someone you get life at the very least no more manslaughter charges. There has been a lot of talk about action and what we can do in response to events like this. I think this is one issue we can all agree on
Jordan

[Robert]

Jordan, if your country is anything like mine then you can demand till you're blue in the face and you'll get precisely nowhere.The only thing politicians understand is when people stop turning up to vote. For anybody. At all.