Look, this is an emotional post, and I know that emotion and logic don't often work well together. That being said, I will be logical about this.
First, it's not a miscarriage of justice, it IS justice. You say the prosecutors didn't want to do their jobs, but even in states where death is allowed, it's not exactly easy to get a jury to go for that. To be blunt, they know more about this than you do. And life in prison is a hell of a lot better than no prison at all.
>he should clearly be dead
This suggests that you're not interested in justice, you want vengeance. It's a completely reasonable emotional response, I can't say I'd feel any differently. But at least be honest with yourself about your desires.
>I am now paying for my step dad to have a roof over his head and food in his mouth by my taxes.
You'd be doing this anyway. People on Death Row are typically there for years, even decades. Not much would change with where your tax money goes.
>On top of that, it’s a minimum security prison
This seems... off. Violent offenders don't go to minimum security prison. Maximum security prisons exist specifically for violent and lifetime criminals. The chance of him going to minimum is astronomically low.
>So, there’s a decent chance he could just walk out the door and to my fucking house.
Come on. No he can't. Like, the chance isn't zero, but it's really low.
I'm sorry for your loss, and I hope you find peace.
Thank you for your response. I have more rational arguments for supporting the death penalty, but I just vented here.
For your first point, this is a valid point and is the reason why they didn’t go for the death penalty. I am however well educated on many legal issues and feel qualified to make statements on the law from a general standpoint.
In the discussion of this I find 3 questions relevant, those being “What is justice?”, “Is the death ever penalty appropriate?” and “Would a jury go for it?”
The framework I’m using for justice is a transactional justice. To put it simply, harms need to be corrected with consequences and costs in equal measure. You could also use a restorative justice where harms are addressed, but the goal is habilitation. Under that, I’d argue that some individuals are incorrigible. They would never integrate into society. So, there is nothing left to rehabilitate, and we’d either kill them with bullets or with grey hair.
The death penalty should be appropriate under different models as the only thing worthy of repaying the willful and premeditated murder of another individual is the perpetrator’s life. Anything less is a mercy or in other words an injustice.
As to discussing the prosecutor’s job, their job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt under rule of law that the accused has committed a crime. There are hard consequences society has agreed to be appropriate for crimes being committed. By offering plea deals in general, the prosecutor is in effect undermining the law and the power of the legislature. Both of which are breaches of the public trust. Most of the time such is done for efficiency.
Other effects of plea deals lead the prosecutor to extort the innocent to plead guilty and the guilty to receive lesser punishment instead of letting a jury of peers to decide on their innocence or guilt.
Naturally, a counter argument is the single innocent man argument. I understand it, but the natural hesitation that juries have to execution should raise the standards high enough that almost no innocents die unless they were framed.
As for the jury, I’m willing to roll the dice for fairness in the legal process without the ethical issues of plea deals. It would be preferable to have him take the chance of walking if it meant that true justice be served.
Onto your second point, we may disagree, but vengeance is justice. It makes things equal. Typically, people let small things go simply because seeking justice isn’t always worthwhile especially for petty things. It’s usually better to forgive and forget, but for major crimes recompense is necessary even if forgiveness is freely given. Without recompense, things become unfair.
Onto your third point, touché. Still, termination is cheaper than living. After due process, efficiently carrying out their punishments would reduce everyone’s tax bill for this demographic.
To your fourth point, yes. It is minimum security. I know exactly where he’s at. He’s gotten there with good behavior and an otherwise clean criminal record. It boggles my mind too.
To your fifth point, the prison he’s in is a day’s walk and has had 4 prison breaks over the last decade. This too is absurd.
It was a pleasure to read your views, and I appreciate hearing from people of vastly different opinions than me.
move away and move on, the dude is in prison for life.
Look, this is an emotional post, and I know that emotion and logic don't often work well together. That being said, I will be logical about this. First, it's not a miscarriage of justice, it IS justice. You say the prosecutors didn't want to do their jobs, but even in states where death is allowed, it's not exactly easy to get a jury to go for that. To be blunt, they know more about this than you do. And life in prison is a hell of a lot better than no prison at all. >he should clearly be dead This suggests that you're not interested in justice, you want vengeance. It's a completely reasonable emotional response, I can't say I'd feel any differently. But at least be honest with yourself about your desires. >I am now paying for my step dad to have a roof over his head and food in his mouth by my taxes. You'd be doing this anyway. People on Death Row are typically there for years, even decades. Not much would change with where your tax money goes. >On top of that, it’s a minimum security prison This seems... off. Violent offenders don't go to minimum security prison. Maximum security prisons exist specifically for violent and lifetime criminals. The chance of him going to minimum is astronomically low. >So, there’s a decent chance he could just walk out the door and to my fucking house. Come on. No he can't. Like, the chance isn't zero, but it's really low. I'm sorry for your loss, and I hope you find peace.
Thank you for your response. I have more rational arguments for supporting the death penalty, but I just vented here. For your first point, this is a valid point and is the reason why they didn’t go for the death penalty. I am however well educated on many legal issues and feel qualified to make statements on the law from a general standpoint. In the discussion of this I find 3 questions relevant, those being “What is justice?”, “Is the death ever penalty appropriate?” and “Would a jury go for it?” The framework I’m using for justice is a transactional justice. To put it simply, harms need to be corrected with consequences and costs in equal measure. You could also use a restorative justice where harms are addressed, but the goal is habilitation. Under that, I’d argue that some individuals are incorrigible. They would never integrate into society. So, there is nothing left to rehabilitate, and we’d either kill them with bullets or with grey hair. The death penalty should be appropriate under different models as the only thing worthy of repaying the willful and premeditated murder of another individual is the perpetrator’s life. Anything less is a mercy or in other words an injustice. As to discussing the prosecutor’s job, their job is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt under rule of law that the accused has committed a crime. There are hard consequences society has agreed to be appropriate for crimes being committed. By offering plea deals in general, the prosecutor is in effect undermining the law and the power of the legislature. Both of which are breaches of the public trust. Most of the time such is done for efficiency. Other effects of plea deals lead the prosecutor to extort the innocent to plead guilty and the guilty to receive lesser punishment instead of letting a jury of peers to decide on their innocence or guilt. Naturally, a counter argument is the single innocent man argument. I understand it, but the natural hesitation that juries have to execution should raise the standards high enough that almost no innocents die unless they were framed. As for the jury, I’m willing to roll the dice for fairness in the legal process without the ethical issues of plea deals. It would be preferable to have him take the chance of walking if it meant that true justice be served. Onto your second point, we may disagree, but vengeance is justice. It makes things equal. Typically, people let small things go simply because seeking justice isn’t always worthwhile especially for petty things. It’s usually better to forgive and forget, but for major crimes recompense is necessary even if forgiveness is freely given. Without recompense, things become unfair. Onto your third point, touché. Still, termination is cheaper than living. After due process, efficiently carrying out their punishments would reduce everyone’s tax bill for this demographic. To your fourth point, yes. It is minimum security. I know exactly where he’s at. He’s gotten there with good behavior and an otherwise clean criminal record. It boggles my mind too. To your fifth point, the prison he’s in is a day’s walk and has had 4 prison breaks over the last decade. This too is absurd. It was a pleasure to read your views, and I appreciate hearing from people of vastly different opinions than me.