This is going to be a long one. And I’ve discovered the “More” tool, so I’m overusing it.
On this eve of the possible execution of Phillip Workman, I need to go on record with a FAQ about how and why I am for the death penalty, even though I believe in the sanctity of life. It’s a seemingly odd position, and I don’t want to give the impression of not having arrived at it logically. So for all of you who’ve scratched your heads over this seemingly bizarre dichotomy among the conservatives you share air with, here’s my attempt at an answer.
How can you be Pro-Life but still support the Death Penalty
This question is similar to all of those “how can you be a moral athiest” questions I see floating around out there, and the answer is similar. The Death Penalty underscores the seriousness of life. Capital Punishment is one of the most life-affirming tools available to a society. It allows us to say that life itself is so sacred, so valuable and so honourable that when you take another life under very heinous circumstances your own life is forfeit. There are some crimes for which there is an ultimate price, and that ultimate price is the sacrifice of life.
How can you deny a convicted criminal the possibility of redemption?
The Death Penalty does not take redemption off the table. It does, however, shorten the window considerably. I do believe firmly in redemption, but I also believe in consequences.
Doesn’t it cost more to execute than to keep a person in prison for the rest of their natural life?
Yes, it presently does. My answer to this is twofold. First, if we are emphasising the value of human life, an execution that costs more merely underscores the seriousness of taking life illegally. Second, the cost of execution is higher because the appeals process takes longer. Phillip Workman, our current Death Row celebrity has been filing costly appeals for over twenty-five years. That builds a lot into the back end expense of the death penalty. In our desire to make sure we execute only those deserving, this society dots every i and crosses every t.
What about all of those innocent folk who are wrongly executed?
I’m sure that it happens. I don’t want it to happen. That’s why I’m all for dotting every i and crossing every t. And making sure our system of due process works. But as I’ve watched the Phillip Workman case unfold, I’ve become acutely aware of the misuse of the word ‘innocent’ by those who oppose the death penalty. Countless pro-Workman writers and speakers refer to him as ‘innocent’, yet an analysis of the facts of the case show that Workman is definitely guilty*. Lawyers have laboured for more than a decade to find a loophole in the law which would excuse him from the death penalty. I consider being ‘freed on a technicality’ to be completely different than ‘innocent’. It makes me wonder how many other supposedly innocent folks really were guilty of their capital crimes yet semantically declared innocent by anti-death penalty advocates in later years.
What Would Jesus Do?
This is my favourite death penalty question. It always cracks me up that people ask this about a man who willingly went to his own execution without an appeals process. That’s exactly what Jesus did. He didn’t labour to find loopholes in the law or languish in a Roman jail for twenty-odd years arguing the merits of His claims. He accepted the consequences of his actions. As he hung on His cross next to another convicted criminal, he forgave that man of his sins, yet still allowed the thief to pay the earthly consequence of those sins.
What about “Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone”?
This verse appears in context in John 8:1-11. Jesus is teaching a religious lesson, when other religious leaders (scribes and pharisees) approach him with an adulterous woman. In verse 5 the religious leaders say
“Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
That’s when Jesus gives this famous answer–which is now both misused and overused. Jesus was answering a religious question put to him in a religious context by religious authorities. Most historical scholars agree that no one in this context had the governmental power to execute anyone. (Only the Romans retained that right at that time.) This was yet another instance of the Pharisees attempting to get Jesus to trip up, do something stupid and be removed from their hair once and for all. Had Jesus advocated stoning the woman–per Mosaic law–the Romans would have executed Jesus for murder. In short, Jesus’ words here are against vigilantism, not state execution. This is, after all, the same Jesus who repeatedly acknowledged the earthly authority of earthly rulers while teaching us all to strive toward Heaven. “Render unto Caeser” are, in my opinion, three of the most important words Jesus ever spoke. He never advocated that the religious be exempt from earthly law, nor that they subvert earthly law.
Isn’t The Death Penalty A Poor Deterrent?
It’s not supposed to be a deterrent. It’s not a hot stove or a plate of bad shrimp. It’s a punishment for a crime. It’s not called the Death Big Warning To People. It’s called the Death PENALTY.
Isn’t The Death Penalty A Bad Way To Get Revenge?
Well, if the Death Penalty were indeed about revenge, yes it would be. But it isn’t about making the victims’ families feel better or more complete or satisfied. That’s vigilantism, and that’s exactly what Jesus preached against. The Death Penalty is about society enforcing its rules. People are not executed because they killed someone’s father or sister or aunt. They are executed because they broke a law of society. Executing killers is not meant to restore the fathers and sisters and aunts to their loved ones. That would be a bizarre sort of human-sacrifice ritual. Executing killers is about forcing them to pay the price to SOCIETY.
What If Someone Raped And Killed Your Sister/Mother/Daughter?
I’d be very angry. Scathingly angry. I’d have long talks with God about why. But I would recuse myself from any of the conversations regarding the death penalty for that killer. Because I firmly believe that the Death Penalty is not about personal revenge, nor is it about making me feel better for the horrible loss I’ve suffered. I’d have to find my personal peace with God and work on forgiving the killer in my heart. I’d have to leave all question of that killer’s punishment up to society.
How Can You Be So Heartless?
I’m not at all heartless. In fact, that’s why I’m so clinical about the Death Penalty. If I didn’t believe in the higher authorities of God and The State I’d turn into one of those angry vigilantes Jesus preached about. It’s easier for me to accept boundaries and know that those boundaries and consequences exist apart from me.
Phillip Workman is not guilty of Capital Murder.
Here’s why:
There are 2 offenses for which the Death Penalty can be the sentence: premeditated murder & when somebody is killed under the circumstance of another felony being committed and one of the agents of the crime commited the murder…in this case it would be if in the robbery an accomplice, or legal term “agent”, of Workman’s had been the one who killed the officer, he would be liable as well and a “candidate” for the death penalty. HOWEVER, the police officer from whose gun the bullet came was not an agent of Workman’s. There is not a dispute in or interpretation of the law that, with the new evidence, this is not a case of capital murder for Workman. This is not lawyer talk. It is THE LAW.
when somebody is killed under the circumstance of another felony being committed and one of the agents of the crime commited the murder
In review of Workman’s lawyers’ papers I know this is their position.
I however side with the the appeals judge and prosecuting attorneys when they assert that a Felony Murder charge validating Workman’s Capital offense exists
[1]Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.
No. 94-02577–Julia S. Gibbons, Chief District Judge.
Argued: June 17, 1998
Decided and Filed: October 30, 1998
Key word being “implied”…so let’s kill him because of malice being “implied.”
The Supreme Court can be wrong, you know.
We’re executing Workman because he was found guilty of Felony Murder by a jury of his peers.
As one of the appeals judges wrote:
[2]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
PHILIP R. WORKMAN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Appeal by Permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals
Criminal Court for Shelby County
No. P-3908 John P. Colton, Jr., Judge
No.W2001-00774-SC-R11-PD – Filed March 30, 2001
Ok, while we don’t agree (pretty much at all), I’ve at least got a better insight. We could while away the hours whittling away at each other’s point of view, but I’m guessing this is more of a position statement rather than an invitation to change your mind.
I’ve still got other questions, though. Why, as a libertarian, are you ok with granting the government a monopoly on the ultimate in coercive force?
As I recall, Jesus asked that he be passed over three times while he prayed in Gethsemane, did he not? Each time, he was refused because that was not the will of God. If that’s not an appeal to the Supreme Court, I don’t know what is. It is more appropriate to say that he acknowledged that he had exhausted his appeals in the only tribunal that mattered.
Again, the law is such that he is not guilty of capital murder. No matter what the jury found.
The prosecution asked for death (that was their prerogative), and the judge granted it. That was before the forensic evidence proved that the bullet was not from Workman’s gun.
A man is going to die and it is an unjust death. If he was going to spend his life in prison, I don’t think people would be as much in an uproar…but it’s A LIFE that is being taken at the hands of the State. That’s where the issue lies for so many people. The taxpayers are paying for a man to be put to death, who it has since been proven did not murder.
I think we could debate all day about this and neither of us will come to agreement, but it is good to have the dialogue.
Also, I appreciate you giving your viewpoint on the Pro-Life/Pro-Death question. I have been wondering that for months, and this is an excellent explanation.
I’m guessing this is more of a position statement rather than an invitation to change your mind.
You can try. It’s been known to happen. But like the Year Of Jubilee it doesn’t happen that often.
Why, as a libertarian, are you ok with granting the government a monopoly on the ultimate in coercive force?
I like this. I think I’ll add it to the FAQ.
As a libertarian I believe that we have government as a Gentlemen’s Agreement for the enforcement of basic societal protection. I grant the government powers to act in defense of my liberties. That’s why I support armed defence.
It’s also why I support Capital Punishmennt. I believe having the ultimate punishment for the ultimate violation of the societal compact is essential for maintaining liberty within a society.
Since I don’t philosophically support the idea of Capital Punishment as a deterrent, I don’t consider the use of Capital Punishment to be “coercive force”, therefore it doesn’t violate the basic tenet of libertarianism.
(don’t you love how I did that?
)
As I recall, Jesus asked that he be passed over three times while he prayed in Gethsemane, did he not?
Again, that was a religious appeal. Was He* requesting that He not be crucified or that He not carry the sins of the world? Knowing which pain was ultimately greater–the bearing of iniquities–I tend to think His appeal was wholly of the spiritual. The physical was incidental at that point.
*(Sorry, I learned grammar from the fine folks at A Beka, so I’ll always cap God-related pronouns. I know it bugs you, but it’s reflexive for me.)
All convicted persons bringing forward an appeal have been found guilty. Otherwise they would have no reason for filing an appeal. The appeals process exists because judges and juries are fallible. Juries sometimes reach a verdict in error for a specific reason — misinstruction, bias, lack of all relevant information — and so for a judge to be aggrieved that someone found guilty might ask for a new trial betrays a lack of understanding about how appellate courts function. Must be a Bush nominee.
for a judge to be aggrieved that someone found guilty might ask for a new trial betrays a lack of understanding about how appellate courts function.
In the larger context of that response, the judge is specifically arguing against Workman’s attempt to have evidence from the first trial reclassified as “new scientific evidence” based on a new reading of the old evidence.
It’s not the appeals process he’s upset with, but Workman’s abuse thereof.
In regards to Jesus and “casting the first stone,” under the Mosaic Law, the witnesses against a defendant in a capital case were required to carry out the sentence. (Deut. 17:6&7)
So Jesus wasn’t telling the Pharisees they didn’t have the right to stone her or opposing the death penalty, He was reminding them of their responsibility to do so…and asking if they could with a clear conscience. (Of course if it had been about enforcing the law rather than setting a trap for Him, they would have drug the guy in too.)
Yeah, i’m sorry that i didn’t cap the He — when in Rome and all that. i noticed that after i hit publish. To atone, i’ll refer to myself in lower case for this post.
No. No one else has to cap the “He”. Like I said, it’s totally reflexive for me.
Years and years of enforcement in my wee days led to this state.
Evidence incompletely read in the original trial (as in “blood that could not be DNA tested due to the lack of existing technology but now introduces substantial new information about the guilt or innocence of the convicted” or bullets that had note undergone forensic evaluation but now point to a different culprit) has been held as “new scientific evidence” and sufficient to warrant retrial. I don’t know how things are breaking in this district, but it’s not so loony a proposition as to merit scorn from the judge.
Kat,
I must say that is the strongest clinical approach I have ever seen regarding the death penalty. And I must add that I agree with your argument 100 percent. Now, let me address bridgett’s concerns:
Yes, Jesus did ask that the “cup pass away” from Him. But then He follows that with “nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.” I believe that is a willingful recusement of His right to an appeals process. He was disqualifying himself as the Judge and Jury. He was leaving it up to God. He knew He was innocent of any and all sin, but desired in his heart of hearts to go to the cross for us. He wasn’t refused; He willingly denied the appeals.
Now, the death penalty is exactly that: a penalty. And God requires us to abide by the Law of the Land.
–I Peter 2:13-17
Just my two pence.
And God requires us to abide by the Law of the Land.
The law of the land is that a person is eligible to be sentenced to death under the 2 circumstances I listed above.
In Workman’s case the law of the land is not being followed.
That is the reason for the outcry.
The law of the land is that a person is eligible to be sentenced to death under the 2 circumstances I listed above.
ACCORDING TO WORKMAN’S LAWYERS.
That’s their review of the “law of the land”.
Others, who disagree, view the same “law of the land” differently.
In other words, those of us who think Workman is eligible for execution believe that according to the written law of the land the bullet did not necessarily need to come from the gun of Workman or an accomplice in order for Workman to be guilty of the capital crime of felony murder.
Quite simply, it isn’t as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.
In other words, those of us who think Workman is eligible for execution believe that according to the written law of the land the bullet did not necessarily need to come from the gun of Workman or an accomplice in order for Workman to be guilty of the capital crime of felony murder.
Quite simply, it isn’t as cut-and-dried as you make it sound.
That argument cuts both ways, though. I’ve got all the respect in the world for you, but if the law was as cut and dry as you’re making it sound, there would have been no need for the subterfuge that has surrounded this case.
If the law was that cut and dry, the state could acknowledge the laws of physics— Exit wounds are always larger than entrance wounds, and a .45 hollowpoint rarely leaves an exit wound. Lt. Oliver’s chest wound is almost twice the size of the corresponding one on his back.
If the felony murder statite applied as you believe it does, then there would have been no need to dispute any of that.
The policemen on the scene claim they never fired. Out of two eyewitnesses, the only one that was verifiably on the scene (Steve Craig) claims to have seen Officer Parker return fire. He’s also signed an affidavit to the effect that he was told to discuss that with no one outside the department. No one ever bothered to check Parker’s or Stoddard’sguns to see if they were fired. That seems like a fairly routine thing to do, but no one bothered.
When two of the nation’s formost ballistics experts disputed the ballistics evidence, the state claimed that the exit wound was smaller because the bullet broke apart inside Lt. Oliver and only a portion exited. Yet they’ve refused to provide an x-ray showing that there are bullet fragments inside Lt. Oliver, and can’t seem to remain consistent from one appeal to the next on whether or not an x-ray even exists.
I don’t know about you, but I have a difficult time believing that the MPD is so sloppy that no one would bother to x-ray a murder victim.
If there was nothing to lose by acknowledging Parker fired the shot, then they would have done it ages ago and put this thing to bed.
So the law does not read as you believe it does. The charge does not stretch far enough to fit the facts, so the facts are being stretched to fit the law.
Workman is far from an innocent babe in the woods. I’ll never say otherwise.
But here’s what we can PROVE he did— He robbed a Wendy’s. By all accounts, he fired an accidental shot that ended up in the arm of Aubrey Stoddard (And if I recall, stayed there, lending further credence to the notion that there would have been no exit wound if his gun did it).
Counting the year awaiting trial, he’s now been in state custody for 26 years. How long does a robbery and an accidental wounding usually merit in jail?
But I don’t even ask for his release— I just ask that this not be made irreversible tonight.
My problem with the death penalty is it’s expensive, and it is way too nice for the people who are most likely to get it. Oh, and all those innocent people, like Damien Echols.
For the folks like me that just aren’t paying as close of attention as they should be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Workman
Please feel free to update this article and the talk page as needed.
Thanks,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Somegeekintn
Good post. Personally, I am in the “I don’t give a crap” camp, in that if the person is genuinely guilty, I don’t care if they stay in jail or get executed. My only concern is those that are innocent. Those who are later found innocent can get recompensed by the government, whereas those executed cannot. However, as you touch on, perhaps more evidence would be needed in a death penalty situation. I think Mosaic law relied upon the testimony of 2 reliable eyewitnesses, so maybe we should resort to that.
Why would someone see your view (pro-life, pro-death penalty) as a contradiction, but never stop to consider their own view (pro-choice, anti-death penalty) as a contradiction? I know conservatives and liberals see the right to life through different frameworks, but a set of beliefs could easily be as inconsistent as the converse set.
If the felony murder statite applied as you believe it does, then there would have been no need to dispute any of that.
It is the job of a defence attorney to build a case for reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury.
A good defence attorney brings these questions up. A prosecutor must respond to the defence.
No one ever bothered to check Parker’s or Stoddard’sguns to see if they were fired. That seems like a fairly routine thing to do, but no one bothered.
It should have been done.
I have a difficult time believing that the MPD is so sloppy that no one would bother to x-ray a murder victim.
funny, but I have NO problem believing that the MPD–the same MPD that didn’t check the officers’ guns–would have made yet another procedural gaffe.
If there was nothing to lose by acknowledging Parker fired the shot, then they would have done it ages ago and put this thing to bed.
No, they had to answer the defence claims that Parker may have fired the gun. But absent conclusive ballistic evidence AND evidence that Parker’s gun was ever discharged, there is no more reason to believe that Parker fired instead of Workman.
So the law does not read as you believe it does. The charge does not stretch far enough to fit the facts, so the facts are being stretched to fit the law.
Admittedly I’m somewhat stretched as I don’t have immediate access to the Tennessee Annotated Code. [1] I need that to see exactly how our State Law reads.
However, in re-reading several scholarly pieces it is quite clear that Tennessee does accept that the primary actor in a Felony is culpable for any subsequent deaths which occur during the commission of that felony, regardless of the instrument of death as long as the primary actor exhibits a mens rea (guilty mental attitude) of recklessness. In Workman’s case, as I stated above, the robbery itself was considered by both the jury and the subsequent appeals court was enough to establish mens rea on the part of Workman.
[1]Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202
Kat,
It is the job of a defence attorney to build a case for reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury.
I really don’t think it would be difficult at all to enter a finding that Workman’s initial attorneys were incompetent. Despite the MPD having no evidence that Harold Davis was ever on scene, they never even bothered to question it. With no ballistics evidence, Harold Davis WAS the case.
No, they had to answer the defence claims that Parker may have fired the gun. But absent conclusive ballistic evidence AND evidence that Parker’s gun was ever discharged, there is no more reason to believe that Parker fired instead of Workman.
Conclusive ballistic evidence? There is none. According to the state (Depending on which time you ask), there’s not even an x-ray of the victim enumerating this theory that the exit wound is small because of fragmentation. It is their job to tie Workman to the shooting; The ballistics experts that testified (Although tragically not at the first trial) were quite effective. Their evidence and expertise vs the state’s lack of evidence. This shouldn’t have even been a tough one to call.
39-13-202 does not address circumstances such as these. I’ll paste the whole thing in here. The outline formatting is not perfectly preserved, but all text is.
39-13-202. First degree murder. —
(a) First degree murder is:
(1) A premeditated and intentional killing of another;
(2) A killing of another committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any first degree murder, act of terrorism, arson, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, kidnapping, aggravated child abuse, aggravated child neglect or aircraft piracy; or
(3) A killing of another committed as the result of the unlawful throwing, placing or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.
(b) No culpable mental state is required for conviction under subdivision (a)(2) or (a)(3), except the intent to commit the enumerated offenses or acts in those subdivisions.
(c) A person convicted of first degree murder shall be punished by:
(1) Death;
(2) Imprisonment for life without possibility of parole; or
(3) Imprisonment for life.
(d) As used in subdivision (a)(1), “premeditation” is an act done after the exercise of reflection and judgment. “Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 15; 1991, ch. 377, § 2; 1993, ch. 338, § 1; 1993, ch. 473, § 1; 1994, ch. 883, § 1; 1995, ch. 460, § 1; 1998, ch. 1040, § 3; 2002, ch. 849, § 2a.]
Nowhere does it address what happens if someone else fired the shot. If you read scholarly pieces that back up your notion, they were, at best, interpreting. You find half a dozen scholars that read it your way, and I’ll find half a dozen that read it mine. None of them will be able to fill in the blanks in this law enough to make first degree murder realistic.
The law you are referring to was not a law when this robbery occurred.
It is the job of a defence attorney to build a case for reasonable doubt in the mind of a jury.
The defense attorney did not have the forensic evidence to build a case of reasonable doubt of the capital murder charge at the time of the trial.
The conclusive evidence you are referring to was not available at the time of the trial.
I don’t know how much clearer this can be stated.
The ballistics experts that testified (Although tragically not at the first trial) were quite effective. Their evidence and expertise vs the state’s lack of evidence. This shouldn’t have even been a tough one to call.
Indeed. This is what I have been saying over and over and over again.
It just cannot be made any clearer.
The law you are referring to was not a law when this robbery occurred.
Felony Murder has been a part of the law since English Common Law. And it had to have been a law when the robbery was tried, because the it is breaking of that very law for which Workman was convicted. He’s convicted of Felony Murder, not just “murder in the First Degree.”
None of them will be able to fill in the blanks in this law enough to make first degree murder realistic.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree, because I think that there is a solid case to be made for interpretation in favour of the felony murder statute in Workman’s case.
So, let me see if I understand correctly:
a.) I am a Christian, therefore I want to pattern my life in a manner that will honor and glorify God, which means (to me) to behave in as Christ-like manner as possible.
b.) Since “a” is true, if I am wrongly accused and convicted of a crime and sentenced to death as a result, I should just stoically march to whatever method of death is assigned to me, because that is what Jesus did.
Is this not a correct interpretation of your original comments?
As for the whole discussion surrounding the myth of the rule of law, at this point I don’t care whether Workman’s trial was fair or not. I don’t care about whether Workman is innocent or guilty of the crimes for which he is going to be slaughtered. I don’t give a damn what kind of message slaughtering him will send.
I do know that if Workman does deserve to die, we have no right to give him what he deserves. Blood vengeance is not ours to dispense. Would you have sanctioned the premeditated murder if one of the other inmates managed to break out and slit Workman’s throat in the middle of the night, just because he deserved to die? If so, why? If not, what makes the relevant moral difference between the criminal and the State’s executioner?
The death penalty is the definitive expression of what the power of the imperium means. It means that the State claims a special right to control you, to beat you, to tie you down, and to kill you, at its own pleasure and discretion, a claim that would be universally met with indignation and horror if it came from anyone else, if it weren’t covered with the robes and the crown. The death penalty — an act of State-sanctioned murder whether the victim is good or evil, innocent or guilty, redeemed or sinful — shows the State in all of its power and all of its glory, in the mirror that flatters not.
The State is Death. That is its power. That is its justice. That is its law.
Since “a” is true, if I am wrongly accused and convicted of a crime and sentenced to death as a result, I should just stoically march to whatever method of death is assigned to me,
This is a hard one, but I would say “yes”. Jesus, Paul, Peter, and countless other Christians have been martyred and accepted that martyrdom. As an Anabaptist with countless martyred fellows in my heritage of faith I have to honestly answer yes to this question.
Blood vengeance is not ours to dispense
As I’ve said countless times before, I do NOT believe that the death penalty is a form of vengeance. I don’t believe it serves the purpose of vengeance.
Webster’s defines vengeance as “punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense.” It would appear this is exactly what the state is attempting to do with the death penalty.
The Random House dictionary provides this definition:
If you hit me and I hit you back, that’s vengeance.
If you hit me and I call the police and they lock you up for assault and battery, that’s not vengeance. That’s enforcing the law.
Being matyred for one’s beliefs is one thing. If some majoritarian tyranny should suddenly decide worshiping God is a capital crime, and I am subsequently convicted and sentenced to die, I agree with you. However, if I am falsely accused and convicted of, say, murder and sentenced to die as a result, I do not think it would be my duty as a Christian to quietly allow the state to murder me in return.
However, if I am falsely accused and convicted of, say, murder and sentenced to die as a result, I do not think it would be my duty as a Christian to quietly allow the state to murder me in return.
Ah. I do see the difference there.
What I’ve got a current problem with, then, is the rationalisation away of certain guilt in many cases and a refusal to accept consequences.
When Karla Faye Tucker applied for clemency in 1998, I was very upset by the presumption of so many that her conversion to Christianity and reform as a human being should ameliorate the consequences of her actions.
What I’ve got a current problem with, then, is the rationalisation away of certain guilt in many cases and a refusal to accept consequences.
In the case of Philip Workman, nobody has ever said he should not pay the consequences for the crime he did commit, which was armed robbery.
However, he should not pay the ultimate consequence when there is reasonable doubt that he took the life!
If you hit me and I call the police and they lock you up for assault and battery, that’s not vengeance. That’s enforcing the law.
I prefer to call that cowardice. I would rather you hit me back.
Furthermore, when the state doles out whatever punishment it deems worthy, that is indeed vengeance. It doesn’t matter that you might prefer to let the state exact the vengeance for you; it’s still vengeance.
the crime he did commit, which was armed robbery
During the commission of which a death occured. That death is, by definition, a Felony Murder.
The punishment for which is death.
there is reasonable doubt that he took the life!
We’re really going to keep doing this? Okay.
I say that it matters not one iota whether or not Workman fired the fatal shot. In creating the circumstance surrounding the death he is guilty under the law of a capital crime.
Now it’s your turn to come back and remind me that there’s oodles of proof that maybe he didn’t fire the fatal shot from his .45 with hollowpoint bullets.
I would rather you hit me back.
Well, as a Christian I wouldn’t hit you back. I’d just turn the other cheek. But as a member of society I don’t believe that the government is an interested party when it comes to exacting vengeance. Therefore I’d rather they determine punishment for wrong as a disinterested party.
Of course, I think you may be an anarcholibertarian as opposed to me being a sociolibertarian, so that’s our principle philosophical difference magnified by this one instance.
OK, if the ‘Law of the Land’ says to go around a kill virgins, would you follow it?
The Israelites broke the ‘law of the land’ many times. For example, when the Greeks took over, they made Torah illegal. Did the yiddins stop studying Torah? NO! In fact, they revolted, and won.
Anyway, the Rabbis outlawed the death penalty because sanhedrin doesn’t exist, and thus can no longer prescribe such punishments. This has little if anything to do with this, just FYI.
Now back to this…
I only think that capital punishment should be used when an individual has commited a ‘crime against humanity’ (like ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.).
OK, if the ‘Law of the Land’ says to go around a kill virgins, would you follow it?
No. But only because I have no idea where to find any.
::rimshot::
I only think that capital punishment should be used when an individual has commited a ‘crime against humanity’ (like ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.).
To borrow from Churchill; we already agree on what you are, and now we’re just haggling about price.
If you are for the death penalty as a punishment for a crime against humanity, we then decide what is a crime against humanity. I personally believe that killing one person is no less a crime against humanity than killing hundreds of thousands. Hence, the seriousness of the Death Penalty.
Well said, Kat, well said. Nobody could have said it better.
[...] Katherine Coble: As I’ve watched the Phillip Workman case unfold, I’ve become acutely aware of the misuse of the word ‘innocent’ by those who oppose the death penalty. Countless pro-Workman writers and speakers refer to him as ‘innocent’, yet an analysis of the facts of the case show that Workman is definitely guilty*. Lawyers have laboured for more than a decade to find a loophole in the law which would excuse him from the death penalty. I consider being ‘freed on a technicality’ to be completely different than ‘innocent’. It makes me wonder how many other supposedly innocent folks really were guilty of their capital crimes yet semantically declared innocent by anti-death penalty advocates in later years. [...]
[...] Which Slarti Gets Written Off As A Loon May 8th, 2007 — Slartibartfast This discussion a Kat Coble’s place is is wonderful and thought provoking. I wish I could join it; but I’ve been hesitant [...]
While I disagree with you, your piece is well written–as always.
There are, however, two points you’ve mentioned that deserve more discussion.
You mentioned you think we should abide by the prosecuting attorney and jury decision.
It should be noted that the prosecuting district attorney is asking for clemency for Workman, as are 5 of the jurors.
The facts of this case–that it was NOT a crime punishable by the death penalty, came out after the trial, which is why the prosecuting DA and 5 jurors have asked the Governor for clemency.
Workman never should have been given the death penalty.
While I disagree with you, your piece is well written–as always.
I’d be disappointed if you didn’t disagree. You are my loyal opposition on this topic.
You mentioned you think we should abide by the prosecuting attorney and jury decision.
At the original trial. A trial is not unlike a chemical compound where several inert elements combine in such a way as to produce a specific outcome.
Once elements are removed from the scenario of a trial–individual jurors, attorneys, and to a degree, witnesses–they cease to be legally relevant to the outcome of a case.
Workman is NOT the only case where jurors, attorneys and witnessess have changed their minds days, months or years after the fact. Time changes people. I believe in the legal system, and once you remove people from the controlled atmosphere of a courtroom, many external factors are at play which can alter their feelings. That’s why things like post-trial affidavits don’t legally alter the outcome of a trial, and why these affadavits on behalf of Workman are largely legally meaningless.
Assuming that the Wikipedia article linked above is correct, in what meaningful sense is the case being reviewed if the same judge hears it again? Seems like a minimum review should demand a fresh set of eyes rather than someone with a stake in the outcome. And I say that as someone who supports the death penalty in general, and under the theory of felony murder in this case specifically…pending an independent process review (which it sounds like is still missing 25 years later).
pending an independent process review (which it sounds like is still missing 25 years later).
These reviews took place at the appellate level on numerous occasions.
I say that it matters not one iota whether or not Workman fired the fatal shot. In creating the circumstance surrounding the death he is guilty under the law of a capital crime.
Kat with all due respect, you are wrong. I have already explained in my first comment in this thread. My explanation is verbatim from 2 attorneys who specialize in criminal law.
My explanation is verbatim from 2 attorneys who specialize in criminal law.
My explanation is from several other attorneys and legal theorists who specialise in the analysis of Felony murder.
Basically, my experts disagree with your experts.
Well, my experts are better than your experts! lololololol!
hee!
The death penalty is needed today more than ever. The reason being that out there is some really mean, vicious killers who know the law, but think it does not apply to them because they have no intention of getting caught, who secretly plan on killing themselves to avoid capture and who plan crime as if its a board game with the cops being the baddies and themselves ‘the prey’. Hence the expression ‘Always one step ahead of the law’.
My view is that you cannot reform people, that inside us we have 7 wires all pushing out different behaviour pattern voltages and depending on which wire is switched on we act and perform accordingly. The death penalty does not deter, because deterrance is a learning and voluntary self education process, and putting someone to sleep for being a mad dog is no great loss to society. Better still we can sleep nights knowing the likes of Bundy, and others, are not prowling the streets and campuses with handcuffs, nylon ties and hoods.
Alllrighty!
Who wants leftover veggie pizza?
Upholding the Law.
Many years ago in England, two young men ages 16 and 18 went out to burgle a shut down for the night tobacco warehouse. The silent alarm was sounded and the Police attended, after a brief chase they caught and arrested the 18 year old youth who was led away to be put in a police car. Meanwhile and just moments later, the other villain rounded on the Police Officer chasing him over the warehouse roof top, this man produced a hand gun and shot the officer dead. He then jumped off the warehouse roof intending to escape, he was injured and apprehended on the ground with a broken ankle.
At the subsequent High Court trial the youth who was in hands- on- police – restraint and custody at the time the shooting occurred was also found guilty of murder and hanged. The other [the gunman] was under age and escaped the rope. The Judge said ‘that it was all one continuous act, the fact that the 18 year old was under arrest at the time of the shooting made no difference whatsoever. They had gone armed, they planned to shoot there way out of trouble and because of the pre-planning involved a Police Officer had been killed. This is an extreme case which indicates how important it is that Court verdicts, no matter how unpopular they are, should not render null and void a Judge and Jury’s decision.
In the case you cite, the youth in police custody (named Derek Bentley) was an epileptic 18-year-old with the mental age of 11. It was unclear, then and now, that he actually understood the likely consequences of his actions. There is considerable doubt that he was capable of premeditation and it was never demonstrated that he knew that his companion carried a gun (Bentley did not). The British Court of Appeals both pardoned him posthumously (admitting that they erred in sentencing him to death for a non-capital offense) in 1993; in 1998, they set posthumously set aside the murder conviction. That doesn’t matter a whole hell of a lot to Bentley, however. He was hung 45 years ago.
So, both Judge and Jury were wrong. Not just unpopular (and rightly so) but utterly incorrect.
A WILSON, now I have a story for you:
A high, desperate, down-and-out drug addict decides he will hold up a Wendy’s to get some money. He waits until the restaurant closes and herds the employees into a back room. One of the employees complains of leg cramps, so the thief allows her to move around to stretch her legs. She activates a silent alarm that quickly brings the police.
Upon seeing the police, this loser thief attempts to run away. As he runs across the parking lot, he trips over the curb. Realizing he has no chance of escape, he calls out to the police his intention to surrender. He removes the gun in his pants to hand it to police when one officer hits the loser in the back of the head with a flashlight. The blow to the head causes the loser to involuntarily pull the trigger on his gun. Firing wildly, one shot goes into the air, while the second strikes one of the officers in the arm.
The officers on the scene begin firing their weapons, although they will later deny this. The frightened loser instinctively runs away to protect himself. As he runs, he is shot in the buttocks with a shotgun. He tries to hide under a vehicle where he is eventually found, blood soaked from the wound to his head and with buckshot in his butt.
Meanwhile, one of the policemen has been shot in the torso. He lays dying in the parking lot.
The loser is charged with the death of the police officer. He has no money, so the state appoints his defense attorneys. A farcical trial is held where the loser’s either apathetic and/or incompetent representation fails to provide any credible defense (no ballistics tests are performed, the single very questionable eyewitness is not questioned at any length, etc.). They recommend to the loser that he plead guilty and hope the court will have mercy on him. They tell him he will probably get off with a charge of 2nd degree murder.
The loser follows the advice of his bumbling attorneys, but he is subsequently found guilty of 1st degree murder and sentenced to death.
The loser appeals his sentence and even manages to obtain more competent representation, but since he had already pleaded guilty to the crime, all future appeals fail to change his ultimate fate. Evidence that proves he did not fire the fatal shot is ignored for the most part.
Some people think the loser needs to die, anyway, because his felonious actions of armed robbery led to the death of the policeman. It doesn’t matter that he was convicted and sentenced for shooting the policeman — something it appears he did not do. After all, the ends justifies the means.
So at around 1:00 am this morning, this loser paid the ultimate price for being a loser. He lost his life. He was such a loser, he couldn’t even manage to keep that.
Many years ago in England, two young men ages 16 and 18 went out to burgle … youth who was in hands- on- police – restraint and custody at the time the shooting occurred was also found guilty of murder and hanged.
Some time ago indeed. 1953 in fact. The UK effectively abolished capital punishment for murder in 1965. It was legally abolished there in 1969.
More info on Derek Bentley
And a brief history of capital punishment in the UK
I’ve been waiting to comment on this post until I could really think through the problem and come up with a firm position and logical reasoning to support it. Initially I agreed with the Kat’s conclusion, but not the reasons for reaching it. In trying reason my way to the same conclusion I found that I was unable to. And so my position has shifted.
Whatever. I read the post which lists a variety of common arguments provided in support of capital punishment such as revenge, deterrence, and cost and systematically destroys those arguments. Well done. However I’m still not seeing clearly a valid reason why Kat supports capital punishment. The way I’m reading this, it is an action without any particular effect except the dubious underscoring of the “seriousness of life”.
In my way of thinking, I boil down the issue to the problem and the desired effect. The problem is that someone has taken the life of a person/s. Since we can’t very well bring the victim back to life we’re left with solutions that attempt to solve problems by eliminating it’s recurrence. We can destroy, permanently incarcerate, or banish the individual that committed the crime and thereby insure that at least this individual doesn’t again trouble society.
If we begin with the notion that life is sacrosanct, or of infinite worth, then it is very difficult to advocate killing as a means of demonstrating just how valuable we consider life. That whole two wrongs don’t make a right thing, blah, blah. On the other hand, if someone were to harm my children… still I’m trying to be analytical.
If we imprison without the possibility of parole we place a burden on the rest of society to support defective those individuals which doesn’t seem right. A society agrees to play by a certain set of rules and if not they are removed from society. But why should society be obligated to support those that broke the rules.
I really wish banishment were a realistic alternative. I think I could really get behind the notion of sending those convicted heinous crimes off to a section of land reserved for those unable to conform to the most sacred rules of society. Give a survival guide, some arable land, some cows and chickens and let them try and create whatever society suits them.
So you can see I haven’t figured out how to cut this particular knot, but I remember well the words of very wise man:
Of course that man wore a pointy hat, and smoked “herbs”… oh and was a fictional character, but that doesn’t make the words any less true.
However I’m still not seeing clearly a valid reason why Kat supports capital punishment.
It’s the most serious consequence we have available to us. Some serious crimes require the meting out of serious consequences.
We can destroy, permanently incarcerate, or banish the individual that committed the crime and thereby insure that at least this individual doesn’t again trouble society.
Those are presently the options available to us. However, I would argue that banishment as a punishment is far more cruel and unusual than the other two options.
Banishment involves taking people who have generally exhibited few or no social and survival skills and then abandoning those very people to what would amount to a den of wild animals. I know people point to the existence of Australia as proof-positive that banishment/transportation works. Unfortunately those exiled to Australia were NOT murderers, but people who had stolen. Australia (and the American Colonies before here) was home to a bunch of theives, not a bunch of killers. And those transported–while that was supposedly the ‘humane’ response–suffered terribly.
Give a survival guide, some arable land, some cows and chickens and let them try and create whatever society suits them.
Since I know you are a geek like me and I knew that Gandalf’s words were coming well before I got to the end of your comment–what geek hasn’t used Gandalf’s words in arguing against the death penalty?–I can also presume you’ve read Lord of the Flies and seen Space Seed and Wrath of Khan. That being the case, I would suggest to you that any society comprised of social outcasts is doomed to barbarism.
I fail to see how “just let them starve or kill each other” is a humane alternative.
Regardless, I also fail to see how answering the worst crimes against mankind by giving a fellow some livestock and a patch of ground in Sociopathyville is a strong statement for society to make.
I saw something on PBS last night about kids getting tried as adults. Something I have been against for quite awhile, actually.
Anyway they mentioned something about felony murder, and it made me think of this conversation.
I can’t be certain that it would be cruel. I suppose it depends on your definition. Being given a shot at living, though it may be a slim one, versus being put to death, hmm. Here we go, give the convict a choice. I bet quite a few would pick the cruel one. As for unusual, everything is unusual when first introduced.
Those are works of fiction, still you’re probably, but not certainly right. It would be interesting to see how it evolved.
So I don’t like execution, paying for the incarcerated, and I suppose we can’t ship the lot of them off somewhere. Guess I’ll continue looking for Alexander’s sword.
Those are works of fiction
You’re the one who brought frakkin’ GANDALF into this.
Casey, I hate to break it to you but Gandalf isn’t a real boy.
Seriously, though, I’ve read many many scholarly (and some fictional) books on the failed experiment of Transportation, the pitfalls and the casual cruelty of it all.
Indeed we must continue to look for Alexander’s sword.
But Gandalf is real; you don’t even know!!
Now you’ve made me cry. Happy?!
Alternative replies could have ranged from serious:
It’s one thing to toss out a quote to summarize my feelings on an issue and another to point to a fiction as evidence that banishment is doomed to fail. I haven’t studied any scholarly works on the subject (wikipedia’s entry probably doesn’t count) and so I’d rather not form a conclusion at this time. I would imagine that just as there are various lawyers that can argue both sides of the Workman case convincingly, there are most likely scholars that can do the same on the topic of banishment or any other controversial topic.
But perhaps I go too far when I propose banishment. Some means of reducing or eliminating the burden placed on society by the convicted is all I was going for here. And then later, I wondered about those that argue some criminals are a product of society. Wouldn’t that make the burden of care should fall on society as a whole? It times like these when I’m reminded how happy I am to make a living making ones and zeros do interesting things.
to comic book guy:
No, of course Gandalf is not a real boy. He is an Istari sent by the Valar to assist the people of Middle Earth in the fight against Sauron. Worst. Argument. Ever.
I’m getting fed up of Courts being made into Excuselands.
You get villains pleading guilty, or being so obviously guilty to 9 / 10ths of the arguments and carefully gathered evidence thrown at them in Court. When these crime incidents occur you often have an armed person, a retrieved gun, a dead victim, a man arrested at the scene, or shortly thereafter, a victims funeral and loss of life and service, the inevitable Police statements that reveal all, blood group matching, the Police interview on camera with its damaging defendant admissions, etc, quite a file of papers, but when it comes to trial then the excuses start. One needs to ask why so any guns go off accidently and so many accidentaly fired bullets find their mark? I’ve tried firing a gun – my fingers weren’t strong enough to pull the trigger, it needed 2 hands, yet falling over, stumbling villains seem to have no bother doing it. Me’thinks we are being misled, conned and sweet talked into leniancy.
Bridgett Post 50: Bentley and Craig had planned for weeks what they were going to do ‘to get money’. In preparation one of them had bought a trilby hat [fedora] to look more gansterish and threatening. Bentley had armed himself with a long knife presumably to stab anyone who dared threaten him. Whilst he, Bentley, was under arrest he shouted out to his accomplice who was brandishing the gun he had just produced and was pointing it at an unarmed Police Officer ‘Let him have it Chris’ [said by Bentley whilst he was struggling to escape Police custody] and Chris did exactly that, he let him have it all right. Poor P C Myles dropped dead shot in the head. Is this the actions of a man who deserved sympathy or leniancy, surely P C Myles is the man we need to honour here, and the verdict was just The posthumous verdict was to placate public opinion over the fact that he never fired the shot and was under arrest. It seemed unfair to many. But was it?
British courts are not courts of justice, but courts of law. Either you believe in the legal system or you don’t. The British courts have now concluded they were wrong in Bentley’s case. That you do not accept as just their finding of pardon and exoneration is curious, considering that you accept with gusto their finding of guilt. I think this speaks more to your love of punishment rather than your zeal for law.
61 Bridgett, with respect do you not think your reasoning is too emotional. You argued Bentley should not have been hung ‘because he was an epileptic and had the mental age of 11′. If we were arguing this before a jury I would counter this with ‘This mans epilespy did not prevent him climbing in the dark a 30 foot drainpipe in order to get on this warehouses roof to carry out the intended burglary, that the carrying off a knife to protect himself with indicates he felt confident he had the strength and physical ability to come off best in any struggle with others, that the stress of climbing onto this roof and the subsequent arrest did not cause his epilepsy to manifest itself – for instance he did not collapse at anytime – but quite the opposite he struggled, shouted and volunteered advice to Craig [ the accomplice] on what to do. Furthermore he was examined by 3 psychiatirsts who all said ‘ he knew what he was doing, he candidly admitted he knew it was wrong, that they were on a criminal mission, and whilst he wasn’t ‘a full shilling, meaning the brightest kid in the class the fact that he didn’t know cofee was grown in Brazil, or George Washington was the USA first President had no great bearing on the case’. He was what he was a petty criminal who had taken part in behavior that resulted in the killing of a Police Officer. He was hung.
The law is a means to an end, the end being the Judges final decision on the severity of the punishment to be imposed, Justice Goddard decided the death penalty was the best course of action to take. Surely your not saying that the Lord Chief Justice was an ass, and Bridgett [yourself] who was not at the trial a better informed and wiser person than him. Bentley was given a fair trial and this is the aim sought.
Law’s end has indeed been reached. The court itself has determined that Justice Goddard did not reach the legally warranted conclusion. As a result, the finding of the trial has been utterly set aside. Moreover, the defendant has been posthumously pardoned. Continuing to argue for the merits of the original trial as though it is an exemplar of justice served is wrongheaded; the British courts conclusively reject the findings you embrace. There’s not a particle of sentiment in that observation; that’s just a legal fact.
63 Bridgett: I give in.
I thought we needed Courts, but maybe we don’t, since no one abides by their verdicts. How do you feel about paper trials, no witnessess, no testimony in Court, just a written outline of the facts and for the prosecution to present the main planks of evidence in writing. Lets do away with the jury system and appoint 3 court attorneys to judge the issue and render a verdict in writing. You’ll be familar with trial costs, with fat cat lawyers, with 38 day trials for 2 day issues, with scumbags costing the state millions arguing over their silly misdemeanors, should it end, and we collectively try to get the present system changed and scrapped.
I want to see the criminals of the street, deported, hung even, I regret beheading was abolished and dungeons do appeal to me, maybe its passing Armley jail in Leeds, that provokes these thoughts. Its a massive building and they’re constantly putting full up signs outside. Why?
Hi all!
Very interesting information! Thanks!
G’night
“…how can you be a moral athiest…”
So far I’ve managed to stay out of trouble relying on nothing but common sense and basic respect for humanity. The best part is that I’m never tempted to play God by claiming to speak for him.
[...] believe the moral foundations for capital punishment in some cases are sound, given a perfect legal system. For instance, in the [...]