Citing this post from Eugene Volokh, Talkleft’s Jeralyn Merritt, guest posting at Vodkapundit, claims Professor Volokh “stepped in it big time Thursday with an endorsement of Iranian torture.” The post in question comments on the execution of 24-year old Mohammad Bijeh, dubbed by the Iranian press “the Tehran desert vampire,” who was flogged 100 times and then hanged. According to an Iranian news account of the execution, “a brother of one of his young victims stabbed [Bijeh] as he was being punished. The mother of another victim was asked to put the noose around his neck.”
The killer was hoisted about 10 metres into the air by a crane and slowly throttled to death in front of the baying crowd. Hanging by a crane—a common form of execution in Iran—does not involve a swift death as the condemned prisoner’s neck is not broken.
Spectators, held back by barbed wire and about 100 police officers, chanted ‘harder, harder’ as judicial officials took turns to flog Bijeh’s bare back before his hanging.
From Volokh:
Something the Iranian Government and I Agree on : I particularly like the involvement of the victims’ relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he’d killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing  and, yes, I am happy to call it a killing, a perfectly proper term for a perfectly proper act  was a slow throttling, and was preceded by a flogging. The one thing that troubles me (besides the fact that the murderer could only be killed once) is that the accomplice was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, but perhaps there’s a good explanation.
Volokh, it seems to me, is expressing a quite “reasonable” position—namely, that families of the victims be allowed to participate in the meting out of retributive justice, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with inflicting suffering on those who have caused so many others such extraordinary suffering. Jeralyn, though, disagrees:
[e]ndorsing torture for anyone diminishes all of us. I’m with those who believe that ultimately, as a society, we will be judged by how we treat those considered the lowest among us, not the highest.
Volokh calls the Iranian public execution and torture ‘justice.’ I call it sickening.
To which I reply, feh. I’m not proud. I’m a human, complete with base instincts. Had it been my kid whom this monster had murdered, I don’t know what I’d do, given the opportunity. Probably torture the fucker. As a form of catharsis. And yes, I’d be able to live with myself afterward.
And let’s face it: often times the sanctimony we build into our laws eclipses our natural human desire for vengeance—sometimes to good affect. But by arguing that in all situations our restraint is a sign of our being civilized and deliberate, we are suggesting, implicitly, that we as a society don’t have the capacity to draw distinctions between the severity of disparate acts. Yet I would argue that our legally-mandated “restraint”—rather than being a measure of our civilized maturity—is instead a sign of our codifying our own self-righteousness into law, often at the expense of those who are actually most affected by a criminal’s actions. In short, we induldge our self-congratulatory impulses, which rely, at base, on the statistical likelihood that we as individuals will never have to face what the families of the victims face. Worrying about how we will be judged “as a society,” and doing so at the expense of those whose pain we presume to understand—all in the service of some abstract principle that we hope, deep down, separates us from the “animals”—this is what diminishes us. By seeking to control our base emotions, we wind up punishing those we should be advocating for: the aggrieved.
Me, I say we try appreciating what it’s like to be in the shoes of the victim or the family of the victim. Let those involved decide if they’d wish to participate in the meting out of justice.
That, to me, is the more civilized route.
****
cross-posted at Vodkapundit.
****
update: James Joyner weighs in.
****
update 2: Volokh responds to his critics.
Part of my argument in defense of capital punishment is that we as people have given the law the responsibility to represent us, when we start feeling that society cares more about acting “civilized” towards the guilty than justice for the victims, vigilantism will break out.
spam word: faith
I saw that story and can sympathize with both sides. He deserved to die, although violent public executions could degrade our society. Overall, I don’t think it matters how we kill those kinds of people as long as we kill them. None of this 20 year judicial game that doesn’t serve anybody but the lawyers.
Besides the cathartic release for the participating families, how many potential murderers in the onlooking crowd were thinking, “Sweet-Allah-in-the-morning, I think I’ll put off that killing I was contemplating, for say, forever?”
It would be interesting to know what the Iranian per capita crime and recidivism rates are, no?
Jeralyn thinks that ‘ultimately, as a society, we will be judged by how we treat those considered the lowest among us’. Really? Who will be the judge? When does this ‘ultimately’ arrive? Unless she’s anticipating some kind of supernatural judgement day, which I doubt, this is bogus rhetoric-mush that she doesn’t in fact believe. All that really goes on, judging-wise, is that everyone who wants to gets to continually express their opinion about the shape their society is in, and some of us will care only about how the ‘lowest’ are treated (in this case, people who torture-murder little kids), and some of us will care about how other people are treated too, eg people who don’t murder little kids, including the families of people whose kids have been murdered. Presently, I judge society to be coming up short in how it treats potential murder victims (they could be better protected), murder victims (they could be better avenged), as well as the ‘lowest’, child murderers (we should be killing more of them).
Should incarceration/the death penalty be a deterrent or simply a punishment? In other words, is it proactive or reactive?
If criminals are molly-coddled and treated with kid gloves as they are in the US today, does that allow crime to increase? If criminals really had to do ‘hard labor’, or face being hanged, or even possibly tortured in limited instances as Eugene advocates, would that limit or prevent crime?
The basic question is: what are we as a society attempting to do when meting out justice? If it’s simply to punish those that commit crimes, then maybe Jeralyn is right. It’s purely reactive. If it’s to make examples of the guilty – to make the commission of crimes literally painful or costly to those that commit them – to force criminials to provide recompense to the society they wronged, then Eugene is right.
I have two kids under the age of 2. If someone harmed my kids in a similar way as that Iranian, would I, as Jeff mentions above, be willing to inflict pain back? You’ve no idea how I’d relish that task. If not for myself, then to send a warning to the next monster that the society I want to live in will not tolerate this behavior.
Predators should be dispatched. Public executions would make those who would consider rape, torture, or molestation think more clearly.
Let their families at them if they want ‘em. I don’t think I would, but how would I know? This horseshit about not wanting revenge if someone slaughters your beloved spouted off by those who haven’t had the experience is unreal. I remember asking my dad if he’d want to kill someone if that someone had killed me. He said no. I was a child, but I thought “liar”.
Urban legend? I remember a case where a woman took a handgun into a courtroom where her son’s molester was being set free. He looked back at her boy and smiled that predator smile and she shot him dead. Despite being a clear violation of due process, that was good and right and just.
”…the least among us..” refers to the least able.. the powerless, the handicapped, the challenged of whatever type.. its not a euphanism for the most vicious among us. Those that kill without good cause deserve a swift and sure and perhaps even brutal death (e.g. Guillotine, Firing Squad, etc) . The relatives of the victim might even be offered a role in the execution as youve suggested.. but I dont think they should be allowed to take the lead in the execution.. simply because if I were allowed to choose the method of execution for my child or relative’s murderer, I’d be far more vicious than the killer ever was and I wouldnt allow him the merciful escape of death.. Killing is far from the worst thing that can be inflicted as punishment.
I want to comment on Jeralyn’s posting but I can’t take it seriously. Sheesh, what a waste.
Ana,
Wasn’t that an epidode of Law & Order? RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES!!!
I still think, judging by the fact that the guy was flogged, hung and stabbed, that someone in Iran scored a bootleg copy of The Passion.
I don’t think I’m engaging in a slippery slope fallacy when I ask this: If seeking to control the base emotions of vengeance is doing an injustice to the aggrieved, is it also an injustice to decide the level of retribution to which they are allowed? That is, if they want to pop a perp’s eyeball out by tightening a vise on his head, should we let them do it because as a society, we don’t understand their pain as individuals? After all, we couldn’t understand the extent of their need for retribution, right? Does the self-righteous hypocrisy of the assertion of “civilization” also extend to sentencing as well as implementation?
Every time this torture stuff comes up, I feel myself in strong disagreement with people with whom I usually agree.
Am I denying that I would have a desire for personal vengeance in such a situation? Hell no, I’m not denying it. And I might act on it, and live with the consequences. That doesn’t mean you have to codify the process.
I don’t think that it was from law and order. I have a vague recollection of it in the news in the 80s.
Even the most loving and gentle women can and will kill and destroy if you mess with their young. I think that there’s something to that. I wouldn’t want to torture the beast, but I sure as hell would want to make sure he was good and dead.
Gillotine? Quick bullet via firing squad? Seems humane to me. Maybe I’m a monster.
“I’m with those who believe that ultimately, as a society, we will be judged by how we treat those considered the lowest among us, not the highest.”
Wow. Makes you want to go out and hug a hooker!
Seriously, Mark makes a valid point about this judgement. When? Who? Can I be a judge? I’d give this guy 9.8 but he did not stick the landing, so .3 off.
However, I do totally agree with the premise of the statement. We are judged by how we treat the lowest among us. If we treat them with coddling moderation and charity then we should be judged as spineless cowards to frightened of sounding harsh to send a clear message. We have to have the balls to look at these people and say, “We have reviewed your overall contribution to the human race and decided that your services are no longer needed. You’re out.”
And it really matters not if it works as a deterrent to others. It is still good policy to remove bad apples from the bunch.
He deserved to die, although violent public executions could degrade our society.
Which degrades society more? Violent public executions or would-be murderers believing they can get away with it? Or that it “won’t be that bad”?
No, you can never eliminate all murders. But if the thugs in Boston, I believe, who murdered an elderly couple had faced the possibility of a painful, humiliating death, maybe they would have thought twice.
Which degrades society more? Violent public executions or would-be murderers believing they can get away with it? Or that it “won’t be that bad�
That presents a false choice. Garotting someone in piano wire in a town square may not be necessary to let “would-be murders belive that they can get away with it.”
Hell, why don’t we have that scene in braveheart acted out in Union Station on the third Friday of the month? You bring the kids, i’ll cook the popcorn. Maybe we can even let the children go up on the dais and twist the meathook a little, eh?
While Jeralyn’s argument seems soundbite heavy, there is a compelling argument to be made that there is harm done to society by grisly torture and execution on cable access TV. For one thing, while allowing the relatives to have a poke is one thing, it blurs the line between between justice and sadistic sport.
For all of those not involved or directly impacted by the crime, I mean.
Who cares why people watch (if they indeed do watch)? They are the murderers. And so long as they don’t become murderers, they can enjoy the show or not, for all I care.
Got it in one, Jeff. It’s all about them.
And Bill’s comment (“You bring the kids”) reminds me of a bit from Terry Pratchett’s Carpe Jugulum in which Granny Weatherwax encourages that very thing. Then maybe the kids won’t forget what evil looks like and know how to deal with it when it raises its ugly head again. (Besides, children like blood and punishment–per Pratchett again–as long as the “right” ones get the axe. Kids have a very strong sense of justice for no more experience than they have.)
Who cares why people watch (if they indeed do watch)? They are the murderers. And so long as they don’t become murderers, they can enjoy the show or not, for all I care.
You think that there is no compelling interest to keep bloody murder and torture out of a public square or off of public airwaves?
This goes beyond a simple “screw the murderer paradigm;” there are public standards to civilized society; there is a reason why “Faces of Death” is sold behind the counter at your local video store. Hell, you could even make the argument that watching public torture would feed the desires of the criminally insane while they stroke themselves to regular public scenes of barbaric justice. Believing in capital punishment is one thing, casually believing in regular gruesome public torture in order to serve justice is an immature populist argument that borders on dissociative sadism.
Lord knows I pine for days when I can watch a perp get gutted like a fish at my local mall, causing me to slip on entrails on my way into Wok and Roll, but I have the sneaking suspicion that some others might not want to see this become a part of our society.
One more thing: Isn’t this contrary to the whole concept of criminal law in this country? It was my understanding that criminal law is established to mete out justice for the crime against society, versus the tort system that is meant to address the wrong done to the indvidual.
Then maybe the kids won’t forget what evil looks like and know how to deal with it when it raises its ugly head again.
I’m sorry, but if you’re serious, that’s a sick argument to opine that torture is something that children should be exposed to. Let’s see, what family liked to showcase torture to the children … who was it … oh yes, the Hussein family.
And look how well those two darlings turned out.
Bill, aren’t we all in some way directly impacted by each crime? Higher taxes to pay for extended incarcerations for supposed death-row inmates? More police and court costs? Expensive home and car alarms? Even to watching our kids that little bit closer? (a cost only in time, it’s true)
The criminal element in society forces us to live differently than we could. Than our parents did. More closely matching the punishment with the crime would likely be more freeing and enlightening than stifling for our society.
– Whichever way this goes, I want the garrot and meathook concessions….
word up: “spirit”….Thats the spirit….
Your hyperbole is not serving you well here, Bill. I don’t expect that retributive justice would become a popular televised blood sport. I’m saying I don’t care about the motivations of people who choose to watch it (if indeed they choose to), so long as they don’t commit crimes—and I certainly am not interested in speculating about the motivations of onlookers as a means to preventing aggrieved families their vengeance, should they desire it.
If you believe this makes a dissociative sadist, so be it; I say it makes me a pragmatist who trusts that adults can decide for themselves what they can and cannot handle.
Bill, aren’t we all in some way directly impacted by each crime? Higher taxes to pay for extended incarcerations for supposed death-row inmates? More police and court costs? Expensive home and car alarms? Even to watching our kids that little bit closer? (a cost only in time, it’s true)
this is a pretty tenuous argument. In many ways, we could say that every Big Mac consumed by Fatty McFatterson in cubicle number 9 jacks up my health insurance, thus there is a compelling public interest to have Big Macs banned. or Fatty McFatterson drawn and quartered at the local high school, if that’s your take. But both the banning of insanely processed food-crack (or the murder of that fat bastard) are measures that are ridiculously disproportionate to the suggested punishment, which is contrary to our societal standards.
But the strength of Jeff’s argument lies in letting loved ones, the true, DIRECT victims of crime, have their cathartic vengeance and justice. Anyone else claiming injury that grants witness to explicit vengeance is just a voyeuristic dick.
And have I mentioned that I can’t believe that i’m having a conversation with people that may think that public torture in the US would be a good thing?
How about stonings, you guys like stonings too? How about when the heavy rocks hit someone’s face and tear off the flesh, so you can see all of that wicked sweet musculature?
It’s just like Nightmare on Elm Street, it is.
I don’t actually share Jeff’s POV on this but I find objections to televised executions as unacceptable in society rather amusing. Top rated shows are depicting autopsies on prime time! CSI seems to have a contest among its special effects people to see who can construct the most disgusting corpse scene.
If I whine about that, I’m a prude and ridiculed but hey, all of a sudden I hear those complaints repeated back – often from the very ones who scoffed before – when the broadcast of serious consequences instead of entertainment is the subject.
I don’t think “irony” quite captures the flavor ….
My hyperbole is not serving me well?
Who is using hyperbole? The subject is an Iranian execution where a man was beaten and stabbed, then slowly lifted from a crane in a public square. The topic is “Violent public executions.”
Was it because I mentioned Wok and Roll?
Ok, ok, I guess they may not have Wok and Roll in Iran, but otherwise, I haven’t seen anyone lay out any terms of the debate that elucidate an “Americanized” option for painful public torture and execution of criminals.
The criminal element in society forces us to live differently than we could. Than our parents did. More closely matching the punishment with the crime would likely be more freeing and enlightening than stifling for our society.
Actually, as of 2002, the overall violent crime rate was the lowest it had been since 1978, and the murder/manslaughter rate matched 1966 levels. This was somehow accomplished without cutting people’s balls off with a rusty saw.
Robin, I think one can safely differentiate between the autopsy of a fictional person and the torture of a real, live person.
Top rated shows are depicting autopsies on prime time! CSI seems to have a contest among its special effects people to see who can construct the most disgusting corpse scene.
Most reasonable people would say that there is a difference between watching an actor lay on a slab as a corpse and watching the fear, excruciating pain, screams and blood spatters of a real, live, dying man. As it is, that’s why we have ratings, cable vs. public airwaves, broadcast time cut-offs, etc., which don’t make fake graphic violence widely accessible.
I’ve seen many a beheading in movies, but watching Nick berg get his head sliced off as he screamed in terror and pain almost made me vomit, and screws with me every time I think of it. Would you say that there is no difference?
Not following you on your argument.
This was somehow accomplished without cutting people’s balls off with a rusty saw.
Are we talking electric or old school?
Are we talking electric or handheld?
I guess in this hypothetical justice system, it would depend on whether it was assault and battery or armed robbery.
I like that.. Sounds fair to me…
On the subject of torture.. Someone mentioned The Passion and it made me think of the bigger picture. In the case of a predatory murderer that kills causually for sport or enjoyment.. would it really be barbaric to subject that person to a prolonged and painful death similar to the crucifixion ? The rest of the world is protected by the death of the murderer.. society’s revenge is exacted through the method chosen. In the grand scheme of things, is one day of drawn out pain too much to exact for the far greater pain that the murderer inflicts on his victim and their family and friends? I’m not advocating turning execution into the latest FOX Reality series.. but public access as public trials have is desireable. Making the death penalty a reality in more peoples minds rather than something one only hears about occasionally wouldnt stop crimes committed in the heat of anger or passion.. but it might change the general attitude among some criminal elements in our society that murder or random killing carries an acceptable risk to benefit ratio..
Those who are against the very idea of capital punishment often argue that it has no statistical deterrent effect. If true, that would seem to counter the two-fold philosophy that laws provide “punishment for a crime” and “deterrence for those considering the same crime.”
My big bone to pick with the anti-execution crowd is that US executions are (mostly) hidden away from the public, which handily explains away the statistics “proving” that the death penalty does not deter violent offenders.
In Iran, the death penalty IS public. And I’m willing to entertain the notion that it just might be a good thing.
Bill, I’m with you that there is good reason “Faces of Death” is sold behind the counter here in the West. Such spectacles certainly make our culture more coarse.
I’m just saying that if police giving out public traffic tickets serves as a deterrent, then private state executions do not.
In the end, I’m with Volokh on this one, while acknowledging the fact that it’s a complicated subject and that differing views might not be “wrong.”
Bill —
You have people being gutted at malls while voyeurs whip their skippies to the bloodletting. All I said is I don’t find your fear of such eventualities as an argument against letting the families of victims participate in the process of justice (should they wish to) very compelling.
Similarly, I don’t find very compelling your argument that such a process could potentially lead to a mall full of entrails and a lot of masturbating weirdos hungry for blood.
Could be this happens—at which case I’d be willing to reconsider my opinions. But I don’t recall public hangings and the like ever causing the kind of depraved frenzy you describe.
Punishments work best when they are swift, certain and severe. While I like to think that we’re getting #2 down (certain, for all you UC graduates), the swift and severe aspects are sadly lacking.
Now, I am not in favor of torture. I’m all in favor of 4 bullets in the heart and an unmarked grave (salted optional). That’s what should be done to the monster from Georgia who killed 4 people last week. Cut the crap with the decades of appeals and get it over with. Put the fear of death in the criminal’s heart if we can’t appeal to their better nature. Do it publicly? I’m agnostic on that, but it make clean and quick.
In the case of a predatory murderer that kills causually for sport or enjoyment.. would it really be barbaric to subject that person to a prolonged and painful death similar to the crucifixion ?
By all means, yes. Let’s emulate the torture of Jesus Christ. A proven method. Awesome!
I mean offense to no one, perhaps it is a result of my own moral compass being out of whack: During these conversations, I feel like I’m living in Crazytown.
Cut the crap with the decades of appeals and get it over with.
I used to feel the same way, until the DNA evidence showed some additional utility in that appeals process.
I’ve been having a discussion of this over at my blog as well. Well if you can call arguing with a Gannon-obsessed, self-proclaimed former member of the press corps and his idiot savant friend a “discussion.”
Anyway, while I can’t support torturing the condemned, I don’t think a mass murder’s death should necessarily be painless, and I am wholeheartedly in favor of letting families perform the role of executioner using state-sanctioned methods of execution.
I’d also advocate re-expanding hanging and firing squads as state-sanctioned methods from the current three states each to all fifty, but that is another argument for another time, I think.
Actually, I didn’t say that there was no difference. But don’t let me get in the way of anyone’s new found fondness for strawmen.
If anything, I’d argue that the depiction of violent real death is more important than its depiction as entertainment. But as I said, I’m not actually on Jeff’s side on this, I’m just agog at the foundations of arguments contrary.
Hubris: you make my case for me. I was born in ‘63. The BJS stats show a “Violent Crime Rate” of 168 for that year. In 2002 the same statistic is 494. That’s a 294% jump and it’s sickening.
But nobody is advocating (here at least) torture as punishment for lesser crimes. It’s being discussed as an option for truly heinous crimes. Is being whipped and hung the proper justice for child-rapist/murderer? If not, what is? Is languishing in prison for 50 years, eating food paid for by those you’ve wronged the proper punishment? A lethal injection after 10 years of injunctions and appeals?
All I said is I don’t find your fear of such eventualities as an argument against letting the families of victims participate in the process of justice (should they wish to) very compelling.
This is not what I’m arguing against, read my comments again.
You are now diminishing the scope of the argument from “beaten, stabbed, hauled up by the neck in a public square is ok” to merely “let the families participate.” Stop wacking that strawman of my hyperbole (which actually isn’t really hyperbolic in terms of the first argument for public torture), I’m over here.
I’m not arguing against something that would LEAD to a mall full of entrails, I’m arguing against a mall full of entrails. Or a stadium, town square, public, ticketed sports event, etc.
Robin, it’s not a straw man: The alleged irony is predicated upon a certain similarity between the two acts, and I don’t see much of one.
Keep it out of the public square. There should be no chance of a child–or other innocent person–accidentally glimpsing such things as he/she goes about his/her business. It should not be happening on the street.
Well BLT,
If not, what is? Is languishing in prison for 50 years, eating food paid for by those you’ve wronged the proper punishment? A lethal injection after 10 years of injunctions and appeals?
That whole “languishing in prison” isn’t a vacation to give the child rapist murderer a little fun and food before they die – thus can’t be seen as a component of their “punishment” – it’s a process to make sure that society is punishing the right man.
This process comes in handy on occasion.
I’m with Hubris, although I think Volokh was right in arguing that this stuff all boils down to one’s own personal puke test. By way of illustration, I have no problem with U.S. troops shooting/hanging SS officers at the end of WWII, but I think putting them in ovens would have been a bridge too far.
BLT, so the murder/manslaughter rate is now the same as it was when you were three years old.
The large jump in overall violent crime occurred in the distant past and has since trended downward.
How does this make your case?
“You are now diminishing the scope of the argument from “beaten, stabbed, hauled up by the neck in a public square is ok†to merely “let the families participate.†Stop wacking that strawman of my hyperbole (which actually isn’t really hyperbolic in terms of the first argument for public torture), I’m over here.
“I’m not arguing against something that would LEAD to a mall full of entrails, I’m arguing against a mall full of entrails. Or a stadium, town square, public, ticketed sports event, etc.”
— And I’ve already addressed that, saying I don’t think it would happen. So I don’t let such a hypothetical eventuality affect my opinion on the matter. I’m not wacking the strawman of your hyperbole; I’m saying your hyperbole is the strawman.
– Lets face it girls. Of all the things in the human experience we have a hard time dealing with, it has to be the act of cold blooded murder. We all may be crazy, but most of us aren’t given to axe murders. How we understand it, deal with it, enact a punishment, and the degree of that punisjment, for something as totally alien to most people is simply one of lifes real bitches. Maybe we never will have good answers.
Bill: yes, but is it enough? That’s my question from above… Is the justice system merely there as the janitor following around after the elephant, cleaning up the messes? Or is it there also as a reminder and a deterrent?
50 years in the slammer is no picnic, to be sure. But is it enough? Is it equivalent for a Manson or a Dahmer to the suffering of their victims? I’d side more with Volokh and say that it isn’t.
But don’t get me wrong, I do see your point and I’m troubled also. Public executions? Unlimited methods of torture? Maybe not. But painless death – if any – as it is today? That seems unduly limiting and charitable to those who don’t deserve it.
I don’t want to belabor my own views on torturing the heinous, which are pretty close to Bill’s. What bugs me about most of Volokh’s critics is the way they heap scorn on his appeal to intuition as if their own reactions were scientific observations read off the dial of a Malevolometer calibrated to three decimal places. That, and their implication that the retributive theory of punishment, debated by philosophers for centuries, were some novel rationalization for revenge that Volokh cooked up on the spur of the moment.
In truth I dont even like the idea of capital punishment for people that kill for some understandable human reason.. like jealousy or anger or frustration..that kill when their blood is hot.. or in cases like Peterson where theres no physical proof positive or eye witness… but for that minority that kills for enjoyment or casually without feeling.. The Angelo Buono.. The Richard Ramirez.. The Jeffery Dahmer.. The gansta that kills needlessly to make a rep. The sexual predator.. The true sociopath.. These are monsters.. monsters that wont be redeemed .. Theyre defective and the defect cant be fixed.. Society must be protected and it isnt fair to penalize society by making them pay via there taxes for years and years of appeals and incarceration.
I didnt mean to advocate crucifixion (that would be too ironic) but rather simply say that perhaps our system should quit worrying so much whether the killer is going to be comfortable as he dies (or suffers too much with a IV needle) and focus instead on determining his guilt to a high degree of certainty, convict him.. march him out to the guillotine (or noose or whatever) and get it over with.. and if he suffers a bit in the process, is it really important?
When a killer is caught on film, and witnesses exist and physical evidence is abundant, why do we allow a ‘not guilty’ plea and years of appeals?
Whose justice is being served there?
Paul Z—Well said. On that note, check out Digby’s Blog and watch him succumb to the vapors upon reading Volokh’s post. Are they so fucking dainty that they can’t relate to Volokh’s position even on a visceral level?
Allah, “succumb to the vapours” is an appropriate line for the sillier reactions. It conveys the non-serious and sometimes even faux nature of the responses.
I’m in complete agreement with Bill on this. It’s one thing to talk about these things, but it would be another thing for a normal person, with a normal functioning conscience, to carry them out. Most of us have instincts that prevent us from carrying out our worst fantasies.That’s what makes us different from psychopaths. Letting the loved ones of a murder victim loose on the murderer in some kind of Bacchic frenzy would be a disservice to them. They need to be protected from being further brutalized by the crime. Our emotions are not always the best indicators of right and wrong. It’s too easy to get carried away and then live to regret our behavior in the light of day, when it’s too late to do anything about it.
Hubris, from the early 60’s to now, the BJS stats show a relative jump in most cases by a factor of 2 or 3 (or more). But since we’re talking about the worst crimes – murder & manslaughter – your refutation of my point is valid and pertinent to this discussion.
Doesn’t yet sway my overall thoughts on the subject, but you made your point.
Just shoot the scum and get it over with. The important part is they end up definitely dead, not whether they enjoyed the transitional phase.
Spambuster: several
“I have a little list…”
Gail writes, ”Letting the loved ones of a murder victim loose on the murderer in some kind of Bacchic frenzy would be a disservice to them. They need to be protected from being further brutalized by the crime. Our emotions are not always the best indicators of right and wrong. It’s too easy to get carried away and then live to regret our behavior in the light of day, when it’s too late to do anything about it.”
And it’s quite possible that NOT letting the victims confront and wreak vengeance on their tormentor does them a disservice. In your response, the important sentence is “They need to be protected from being further brutalized by the crime.” And I would suggest that until you walk a mile in their shoes, you cannot reasonably make the assertion that what you are doing, by preventing the victims from their moment of vengeance, is in fact “protecting” them.
Mojo- Pithy and right on… as to whether they enjoy the transitional phase, I’m not sure how you would determine that.. I guess maybe you could toss one of those customer satisfaction surveys into the box with them before theyre buried.. or maybe put one of those suggestion boxes on wall of the execution room with the sign that says ‘your satisfaction matters to us’.. of course the last words from the executioner would have to be changed from ‘Do you have any last words ?’ to ‘Do you have any last suggestions as to how we could have served you better ?’
and of course, once the deed is done..
“Thank you for choosing Pelican Bay”
(or whatever…)
Turing word: human
whewwww.. I thought for a second that it said
humane… that would have been too weird
I have no idea what would make the victims of heinous crimes feel better about what happened to them–I imagine it would differ with the person. But the vast majority of ordinary people have never taken extreme, violent action against other people and in fact have a strong reluctance to do so when they’re not overwhelmed by their emotions. It is one thing to do violence when violence is immediately threatening oneself or a loved one, but that fight or flight moment can’t be recaptured after the fact. To a certain extent all revenge has to be served cold, and I think that personally taking such revenge would be a morally coarsening experience. Not that I wouldn’t want to do it.
Exactly, Gail. And not to get all po-mo here, but we base our laws on an abstract appeal to what we believe will be a “coarsening experience” based on a particular (but not necessarily a universal) idea of what is “moral” under the circumstances.
And I’m suggesting that perhaps it’s time to re-examine that particularized moral tether.
Ok, ok, I guess they may not have Wok and Roll in Iran, but otherwise, I haven’t seen anyone lay out any terms of the debate that elucidate an “Americanized†option for painful public torture and execution of criminals.
Well, drop the torture part, at least in the sense of drawing and quartering or stabbing, or whatever.
Bring back public hangings. Used to be the preferred method of execution in the US. Heck, according to the geneaology work my brother’s done, one of my own ancestors was hanged for murder.
Let the victim’s survivors pull the handle, or put the noose over the convict. It doesn’t need to be aired on TV, but I can’t think of any reason to keep people away.
I dont think what were talking about is neccessarily our need to reexamine our own moral tether.. when our forefathers wrote ‘no cruel or unusual punishment ‘ they obviously werent talking about hangings, firing squads and other quick if not entirely painless methods of execution.. What we’re talking about is the greedy and or liberal lawyers and corrupt civil liberties groups that have tried every crazy, underhanded or desperate way to delay or halt the death penalty process and sell it as barbaric to the public.
Consider the arguement that an IV needle constitutes a cruel punishment. That a killer that requests the death penalty is not of sound mind and so isnt capable of making a responsible decision for himself. That an obese killer that chooses hanging as his method of execution cannot be executed because it would rip his head off (due to weight) and so is cruel/unusual. catch 22..
We dont need more or fewer laws..we just need to enforce the basic laws we have with some common sense and in the spirit in which they were written (before lawyers dissected and twisted the original meaning of the words) and in an efficient and timely manner..
Whatever works. I’m pragmatic on the point.
Maybe this debate is over a point of semantics.. Maybe ‘torture’ is the wrong word.. as in the act of causing extreme and prolonged pain as a matter of retribution.. maybe ‘horror’ would be a better word.. As an example, I cannot believe that the guillotine caused the prisoner undue pain, The process is so quick and traumatizing that I cant imagine the prisoner felt much if anything. But beheading is the antithesis of the sanitized execution.. I would wager it would make a profound effect on anyone viewing it.. It might make an excellent tool in the Scared Straight program.
Likewise, the Arab Terrorists not only blow themselves up as bombs but also use the method to execute their condemned prisoners. Remember the one last brave Frenchman that they executed with semtec. “::spits::..now I will show you how a Frenchman dies..” This method might be adequately horrific to influence the attitudes of potential murders before the fact.
What are your thoughts on gruesome yet painless (pretty much) execution methods (to anyone)
and the value of horror in preventing the murderous urge ?
The Romans, who were quite efficient at killing people, nevertheless had several degrees of punishment depending on circumstances.
As noted at http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/crucifix.htm: “The social stigma and disgrace associated with crucifixion in the ancient world can hardly be overstated. It was usually reserved for slaves, criminals of the worst sort from the lowest levels of society, military deserters, and especially traitors.”
The process of such a public spectacle was designed, in part, to forever associate the perpetrator with gruesome unpleasantness. “Bodies of the crucified were often left unburied and eaten by carnivorous birds and beasts, thus adding to the disgrace.” There was to be no obligatory neighbor quote on the news—“he seemed like a regular guy.”
Instead, there was a clear meaning that someone had transgressed the social norms to such an extent that they were to be obliterated, their good works in life to be blotted out by the horror of their death, and—if remembered at all—they should be remembered with revulsion.
While this message was limited by the technology of the time, I think that it could be relevant today. Dahmer, Gacy, and Mohammed Bijeh may very well qualify for this type of treatment—public humiliation, punishment, and obliteration. The public good of showing evil plainly, as well as the social reaction to such evil, would probably outweigh the disturbance created by public executions.
Bravo! Well spoken.. (err.. typed..) .. Cthulhu
BLT,
Thanks, and you do have a point on the other cases. It would be interesting to look at the causal theories for the jump.
I think I’ll keep my tether right where it is—I don’t want to wind up down the river with Mistah Kurtz.
Gail —
Appreciate your (implicit) concern for my moral well-being, but I can assure you that no reexamination of my moral tether will convince me it’s okay to drift into disillusioned Kurtzian nihilism.
Drop the Bomb.. Kill them all..
APOCALYPSE NOW
but maybe you dont have to be a disillusioned Kurtzian Nihilist to appreciate the value of horror.. I mean, Machiavelli recognized the sheer power of fear and recommended (in The Prince) that if you have to chose between loved and feared, choose feared. Kurtz recognized the strength of will that was required for normal people to put aside their own moral values and do what was neccessary to win. It’s only our modern day academic intelligensia liberal cultural elite that insist that fear of punishment doesnt prevent violent crime.. and that may well be true under our current legal system that routinely incarcerates prisoners for 10-20 years before actually putting a criminal to death.. That creates disconnect between the crime and the punishment.. If you want to train a puppy you dont let him pee in the floor then wait a couple days to rub his nose in it.. he cant associate the action with the penalty. It has to be done right away so he knows why he’s being punished.
In the context of this discussion that means that for potential killers to be influenced they need to know what crime was committed and that society doesnt tolerate it.. and that the punishment is the direct result..
Aaaaah Kurtzian Nihilism.. (come on in..the water is perfect..)
Jeff, I wasn’t talking about you. Of course you’re not going down any slippery slopes; neither am I, though I used myself facetiously as an example. But traditional moral restraints are there because as a society people feel safer with them than without them. Things can go awry really fast once the brakes start getting mushy on a large unwieldy group of people who are too busy arguing to steer. Seriously, I would never make any snide, moralistic remarks to you or about you; I just really disagree with you on this issue–maybe because I have too little faith in human nature en masse.
Well, alrighty then. Not Heart of Darkness Kurtz. That’s why I don’t know what you people are talking about. Yeesh. Total confusion. I thought that Jeff was putting human heads on pikes around the perimeter of his compound and hunting for Ivory. Glad to clear that up….
Devil’s Advocate: What if it’s my kid or your kid who has done the savage thing? Let’s say that somehow he’s been out of protective sight for some period of time, he gets molested repeatedly, the perp goes free, it makes him snap and he goes and does something unspeakable. Is it just for him to be tortured before he’s killed? As his mother, I’d at very least like to see him killed quickly and without torment and horror. Is that too much to ask? I don’t know.
Maybe it is important to dispatch quickly and without torture. When a dog attacks a child we don’t torture it before we put it down because that wouldn’t be right.
– It may be over simplistic but I’m thinking that the general way the victims “benefit” from whatever level of involvement in the “punishment” of the perp is pretty much dictated by the culture they grew up in. The average American soccer mom is not actually going to use an ice claw to evacerate the bitch next to her in the produce section who scored the last can of on sale sweet pees, even if the idea might cross her mind. In Bhagdad I wouldn’t be at all certain of the outcome of the same situation….
I always thought they should lock the murderer up with the father of his victims and let the father take revenge any way he could. This goes back to the Son of Sam murders here in New York. Tie the bastard to a chair and let the family of the victims have a good time!! Yeah!!
BBH, Yes. Change the culture, change the level of satisfaction derived from various forms of violence. That’s why I fear change.
If were going to accept that a death penalty is appropriate for some particularly heinous killers, then all we have to do is determine what we want to accomplish by using it.
If all that were looking for is to terminate a life, a simple overdoes of morphine by IV would let a prisoner slip into a pleasant euphoric state and a bit more would stop their breathing. Totally painless. A smaller ‘priming’ oral dose could even be given earlier to relieve the anxiety.
On the other end of the spectrum we have some method that would not only terminate the prisoner, but punish him with extreme and prolonged pain as well as intimidate onlookers and be an example for potential evil-doers. Perhaps even a form of blood sport.. Something like crucifixion or thunderdome..
What I am proposing is something in between that would be at most briefly painful for the prisoner, but that isnt so sanitized that the fact that its death is not appearant.. Something that will terminate the prisoner and intimidate potential killers.. guillotine, hanging, electric chair, C4.. but publically accessible.. not neccessarily on HBO, but not hidden away as if we (society) are ashamed of it. Let the people see Who, Why & How..
What makes justice just? God knows.
Not that I particularly care about universals.
We perform our executions in a closed, secretive, and furtive manner. All executions should be public. If there is any validity in the deterrent argument, that argument requires that executions be done in the town square or at the least behind the courthouse. Someplace where I could bring my 12 year old and impress upon him that not only does society have laws that protect it’s members against the most extreme acts of their fellows, but that it also requires appropriate justice when those extreme acts do occur.
I do not think that slow hanging or allowing the family members to stab the criminal makes much sense though nor does flogging the criminal before hanging him. The law should not mete out vengence. It should mete out justice. The sentence and the justification for the sentence should be announced at the end of a public trial and again just before a public execution, and the execution itself swift.
Jeff (and Bill, BLT etc.): Thanks for a rational discussion of the death penalty rather thanthe usual leftist clap-trap. I represent indigent crimianls for a living in anon-deathpenalty state. Knowing how error prone our system is, I am opposed to it. But there are plenty of people in the world who do not deserve to live. This Iranian guy being a prime example. I’m with everyone who said “My kid…I’d do worse to him.” I would also torture and kill because of that need for personal catharsis.
The real question should be; why should society give a rat’s ass about my personal feelings? No matter how justified my feelings may be. Law should be based on societal order, not somebody’s “feelings” This is a conservative argument as senseless as this leftist nonsense about someone’s remarks making them “uncomfortable”. Life is tough guys, sometimes things are rough.
If we are going to execute scumbags, then by all means do it publicly. But be very leary of basing legal policy and reality on emotion and “feelings”. Its the proverbial slippery slope.
Previously it was opined that public execution should not be allowed because it would be simply too shocking for children or those of weak constitution to bear.. I disagree.
Until recently, with the wars and terrorism, I dont believe most Americans had seen death face to face.. at least not outside the sanitized and painted context of the funeral parlor. Death was something unreal that happened to the quite old and infirm and only occasionally to the young and healthy. Hence, no sense of reality associated with death.. no sense of permanence. Our kids watch bad guys die bloodlessly and fall to the ground on DVDs.. they play XBOX games and stack up the corpses like cordwood while they themselves absorb round after round painlessly .. and then we’re surprised that they extend that casual view of death into the real world.. surprised that they ‘pack some heat’ and ‘pop caps in some Mo Fo’s ass’ with no more thought or remorse than if they were stepping on a bug.
Dont jump the gun here (no pun intended) and think that this is adding up to an anti-gun arguement.. it’s not.. Guns are tools, nothing more.. like a steak knife or a baseball bat or a match or screwdriver.. All of them can easily kill. Whats lacking in our society, especially amongst our young, most impressionable generation is a real sense of the reality of death. A first hand experience with death that will instill in them the sobering idea that on one hand, death is very easy to cause. One expects the body to put up a much greater fight before giving up the ghost, yet one little red hole is enough to take down the strongest of us. On the other hand, but for the grace of God they might themselves be facing the same fate. Its seeing the anxiety and fear in someone that will momentarily be meeting their maker and could well be them (or them before too long)that will bring home the reality.
At the risk of being trite, if young people watching public executions results in one kid being too nervous to risk committing a crime with a gun, then its made it all worthwhile.
“But be very leary of basing legal policy and reality on emotion and “feelingsâ€Â. Its the proverbial slippery slope.”
I don’t believe I’m advocating basing legal policy on emotion and feelings; I believe I’m advocating for legal policy that recognizes that, rationally, that the emotions and feelings of victims and their families need to be better accounted for in the punishment process. We are not Houyhnhnms. Therefore, we should work to accomodate that part of us that—while it recognizes the rational, and even foregrounds it—does not do so at the expense of the instinctual.
As a Euro Weenie I don’t buy the arguments for the death penalty anyway, simply don’t. But taking Volokh’s thoughts a little further. There are some crimes that deserve the death penalty. Some that are worse, and deserve a painful death, some even worse than that which deserve torture (in this case whipping) before that painful death (slow hanging rather than long drop). I don’t think I’ve misrepresented what he’s saying.
20 murders and rapes of children gets to the tarrif of torture and painful death. What do we then say is the tarrif for a Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot? Obviously, given our logic, more torture before that painful death. We might actually think that there are some crimes (genocide?) which are so heinous that we cannot even impose the death penalty, for we need more time to inflict pain upon the perpetrator. Torture them, repair them, torture them again, repair and continue.
As I say, I don’t buy the argument for the death penalty at all, my moral compass being firmly fixed at the point that killing people, for any cause other than immediate self-defense or in the course of a Just War (as defined by Aquinas) is wrong, whether we are talking about abortion, euthanasia or the judicial system, and find myself profoundly uncomfortable that I live in a society that allows one of the three, you in the US have two and the Dutch have a different pair of the trio.
But I think I would be even more unhappy living in a society that employed people to deliberately inflict pain upon people, whether this was done in private or public, whatever the justification given for it, however just it might be in terms of retribution or in the effects on future potential criminals. In fact, I think I would find myself having to leave a society which did in fact employ torturers, simply could not in good conscience continue to live in a place or culture that thought that part of civilisation.
I realise that’s not quite the party line amongst us righties (I’m a fully paid up member of the VRWC on most things) but then we do have it on fairly good authority that one’s conscience, that little thing at the back of the head that says “that’s wrong”, is an individual thing. Torture is wrong.
I would also want to remind people that Iran, that place that whipped and painfully killed a child rapist and murderer also whipped a boy to death for eating during the day during Ramadan recently, and a few months ago slow hung a 16 year old girl for shagging her boyfriend. Not, to my mind, a place to look for lessons on justice or suitable punishments.
Tim,
Your point about not taking lesson’s from the mullahs is a good one, and your remarks regarding the problem of proportionality work, to a point, especially as a rebuttal of Volokh’s statements to the effect that deliberately painful killing would be retributive for particularly horrible murders. I don’t think it works as an argument that capital punishment itself is philosophically wrong, but it doesn’t appear that you’re using it for that purpose.
Volokh’s statements don’t consider that proportionality should be a limiting principle even more than an enabling one:the severity of punishment should be limited by society’s moral standards, not by the conduct of the worst offenders in society. A sovereign who fails to exact retribution or sufficient retribution gives private citizens moral justification to take the task of punishment into their own hands. A sovereign who imposes punishment that is either disproportionate or harsh beyond society’s moral limit confers victim status on the condemned and in doing is seen as cruel rather than just, and merely a part of a revenge cycle rather than the end of it.
Although I share your view that killing for punishment is wrong, my reasons are purely faith-based—I’m unpersuaded by suggestions that purely secular morality leaves society without justification to kill its worst murderers.
Knowledge is good. – Faber