"I think we need to kill more people..."

This is a repost of a thread from the old board that did not get migrated. Though the original post was not very compelling, there was a good discussion further down. I'll leave it up to the other posters to migrate their comments, but here's a link to the old site (for now)

"I'm a believer that the death penalty serves society's interest in revenge. I know it's a hard word to say and people run from it, but I don't run from it because I think there is a very strong societal interest as a people," Cox said. "I think (revenge) is the only reason for it."

"I think we need to kill more people. … I think the death penalty should be used more often. It has come to the place in our society where it is used less often, and I think crime in our society has expanded so expeditiously ... that we're going the wrong way with the death penalty that we need it more than ever and we're using it less now," he said.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/03/27/glenn-ford-dale-cox-charles-scott-caddo-parish-death-penalty-execution-marty-stroud/70529188/   

ETA: I've moved the content from the old site to this one in the hopes that the discussion will continue.

Jackson Fusion replied:

Well, you bowdlerized him a bit there. The article gives a clearer airing of his view- I'll leave it to others to read and judge for themselves.

The story overall sounds like a movie- the guy who got out was absolutely involved but didn't pull the trigger, a mystery witness came forward who was known to no one back then, and that witness is still in mortal danger today due to "rumblings" from brothers who were involved in this incident and subsequent homicides....  

Particleman responded:

I'm not talking about the particular incident, though. I'm talking about the attitude of an ADA that the justice system should be used for "revenge" (his word, not mine). And that we as a society should be killing more people.

What part of his view did I leave out? The paragraphs that I pulled do not distort his opinion.

I agree - others can read and judge for themselves.

Jackson Fusion:

The posted quote highlighted the sensational aspect of what he said- "kill more people"- and left out his migration from anti to pro death penalty, and how he arrived there. He wasn't the guy who tried this guy, or the one that sought the death penalty-he's the one who moved quickly to spring him.

I assumed titling the thread "I think we need to kill more people" and adding a "warning-political" label acknowledged that you were looking to stir things up a bit. It left out quite a bit of context to the guy's statement. But as we agree, people can judge for themselves.

The justice system absolutely does, I'd point out, intentionally deliver retributitive justice. It's a feature, not a bug.  

PM:

He moved to spring him once it was clear that the guy didn't commit capital murder. Had Cox's current view been the norm at the time, this innocent* guy would be dead. However my intent was not to demonize this particular ADA. More to point out an attitude that can be dangerous - a desire for more death penalties and faster execution of those sentences.

I actually got to that article through another article on prosecutorial misconduct, where a former prosecutor was lamenting the "win at all costs" attitudes prevalent in many prosecutor's offices, including his own at the time. He discussed exculpatory evidence being withheld, witness coaching, and other tactics focused not on justice, but on winning convictions. I'll see if I can find the original article.



*Innocent of the capital crime for which he was convicted. I have no illusions that he was completely innocent of any wrongdoing.  

JF:

Prosecutorial abuse (misconduct suggests outright actionable behaviors- there are lots of wrong things prosecutors do that fall short of misconduct- forcing a defendant to go bankrupt to elicit a plea, overcharging to petrify a defendant away from a trial and into a plea, etc) is a separate issue and one you and I apparently are in harmony on... As are many people from very diverse sections of the political spectrum.


Edit to add- I don't agree with the conclusions herein (well, there are no boldy-stated conclusions, but neither are there any attempts to explain the reasons for why our system is operating as it is and in some cases as it must and indeed as it should) it's a good quick rundown of how a prosecutor can run you right over with very little restraints.

http://www.secondclassjustice.com/?page_id=380 

Norman:

Yikes. That was some scary reading. 

Tom R (not Reingold)

JacksonFusion,

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative system?

TomR  

PM:

A big part would be to eliminate mandatory sentencing. It removes judicial discretion and provides more leverage to prosecutors to, in some case, extort pleas from defendants.

I have enormous respect for prosecutors. I think most believe in what they do and want justice rather than just victories. But a close friend, who was a prosecutor in NYC and is now an AUSA, has questioned his own office's actions in some cases. Not enough to raise ethical questions, but concerns.

Perhaps if career advancement were not dependent on obtaining more (and more high profile) convictions, it would help. 

JF:

Tom R said:

JacksonFusion,

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative system?

TomR

Unless it involves finding a cadre of perfect Solomon- like prosecutors I don't. It's a tough nut.

Prosecutorial immunity is so critical to prosecutors being able to do their job, and is such a powerful shield to hide behind, that all you can really do is try to make sure that whoever you entrust with what is in essence a civic superpower will use it responsibly and impassively- and with no view toward personal enrichment (getting elected, promoted).

Maybe one place to start is by de-criminalizing mala prohibita type offenses so less people find themselves at the mercy of a prosecutor of any stripe- maybe one place to start is by putting sunset provisions on the same.

Murder is always going to be wrong, mala en se but should we still be putting people in prison if they have a switch blade? It's not 1950 and any knife cuts as good as the next. You still will go to jail if you have one though. There is no "let's decriminalize switchblades" lobby to advocate for reform. A sunset would require legislators to affirmatively say, "yes, society still wants this to be illegal" rather than keeping the law immortal and unrevisited or revised.  

Tom R:

Jackson,

Thanks for responding. It would appear that we're pretty much in agreement; although your reference to acts mala prohibita, such as possession of a switchblade knife, intrigues me.

Isn't the difference between between possession of a switchblade and murder just a matter of degree? Should it matter how many people think something is wrong, so long as it's a majority?

Why should one class of crimes be subject to periodic review; and another, not?

As to decriminalizing acts mala prohibita, would you have that apply to all such acts?

As an aside, do you have a reference to the statute(s) criminalizing the possession of a switchblade?

Thanks for any help in better understanding.

TomR  

JF:

Tom R said:

Jackson,

Thanks for responding. It would appear that we're pretty much in agreement; although your reference to acts mala prohibita, such as possession of a switchblade knife, intrigues me.

Isn't the difference between between possession of a switchblade and murder just a matter of degree? Should it matter how many people think something is wrong, so long as it's a majority?

Why should one class of crimes be subject to periodic review; and another, not?

As to decriminalizing acts mala prohibita, would you have that apply to all such acts?

As an aside, do you have a reference to the statute(s) criminalizing the possession of a switchblade?

Thanks for any help in better understanding.

TomR

Good question- one thing I'll quibble with: Switch blade possession vs murder are not matters of degree. Mala en se refers to the fact that, even in the absence of a law addressing it, the act is in and of itself just plain wrong, and it's wrong simply by virtue of what it is. Murder is wrong by itself without someone codifying it. It is intrinsically evil.

Mala prohibita is stuff that's wrong because there's a law against it. It may be a good law, it may be a purposeful law, but the criminalized act itself is not intrinsically evil.

A guy who carries a switch blade has not committed an act that on its face is evil. Someone who creates a machine gun without the proper permits has not committed an intractably diabolical act, with bad intent. A bad idea? Maybe! A thing society believes it has an interest in stopping? Manifestly!

But some dork who is into West Side Story cosplay that gets caught with a switchblade has not committed an act that by its very nature is evil. He's just transgressed a law that prohibits possession of such devices.

As far as switchblades legality- illegal in NJ. I believe federally as well. Incidentally, within the same nj statute, sling shots are also illegal.... And that is widely believed to be an accident! The original proposed law sought to criminalize "slung shots", which were basically lead-weighted leather saps for beating people. It was transcribed by someone as "sling shot" and viola, Dennis the Menace is a criminal in the Garden State, and worse, there is no "free the slingshot" lobby.

So I would say a good place to start for reviewing criminality would be between the two types of "wrongs". Murder ain't gonna fall off the list no matter how often it's reviewed!  

mfpark:

Jackson Fusion--that was one of the best posts I have read anywhere in a long time. Thanks.  

JF:

mfpark said:

Jackson Fusion--that was one of the best posts I have read anywhere in a long time. Thanks.

Very nice of you to say... Soon to be deleted though!

dave:

This thread is going to be closed shortly. Feel free to start it anew on the new forums.
http://maplewood.worldwebs.com/

TR:

dave,

Newly assigned password is not working.

Have tried to access the message board with a space in my user name, and with an underscore. Tried both methods in lower case, as well as using leading caps.

Have tried the password in each of the above iterations using the numeral 1, and the letter l in the 13th place.

An reply to the e-mail address providing the new password was kicked back.

Any help you can provide, would be greatly appreciated.

TomR  

TR:

Jackson,

I fully understand the distinction between malum prohibitum and malum in se, as well as the distinction you make in placing the crimes under consideration in the respective categories. No argument.

My reference to a difference of degree was only referring to the segment of the population in a given jurisdiction which think that one, or the other, of the acts should be subject to criminal prosecution. I thought I had made that clear, and regret the I had not.

In the case of an unjustified taking of a human life; I would think that the overwhelming majority think it should be the appropriate subject of prosecution. On the other hand, just carrying a switchblade knife, while out and about; perhaps a smaller majority.

No matter how heinous the act; it ain't a crime until we say so.

I think we were just looking at different sides of the coin, so to speak.

Periodic review of our Penal Code? Works for me, but I suspect that our legislature is just gonna rubber stamp any proposal that says "the code looks good the way it is". (See above, your comment regarding Dennis the Menace and his sling shot).

Thanks for making me think. 

TR:

dave,

I got it to work. Cumbersome, but it's working.

TomR  

JF:

We can move it if you like... What do you suggest? It's PM's thread and he seems to have moved over himself.

Good chat for sure.

You're right that it's not a crime till we call it such- but murder will always be wrong in non-savage cultures. It will always be feared by victims, reviled by loved ones, and condemned by communities.... Unless the communities are complicit, like it (Godwin's incomin!) Nazi Germany. The existence or non existence, sufficiency or insufficiency of the law doesn't change that.

Rarely will we find someone who gets hysterical about someone having an illegal switchblade collection!

Part of the issue is of course that it's difficult if not nigh impossible to know precisely all things that are illegal and come with meaningful, potentially devastating criminal sanctions. We've also seen legislatures outsource a tremendous amount of their responsibilities and domain of power to regulatory agencies on the executive side. That leads to what amount to blanket provisions with back filled details that are constantly shifting.

Jackson,

I think we both fairly understand one another's point.  Anything I might have in counterpoint would only be nitpicking; and therefore, unworthy of pursuit.

Should you come up with a thought for improvement of our criminal justice system, short of cloning Solomon, I'd like to read it. Change often starts with imperfect ideas.

Thanks again.

TomR