It's hard to care about Florida's so-called botched execution of the murderer of Joseph Nagy. You might be confused -- where did I get the name of the victim, Joseph Nagy? He isn't mentioned in the article anywhere! Instead we're treated to pictures of Angel Nieves Diaz's family crying because their murdering kinsman is being put to death 27 years after his crime.
In Florida, medical examiner Dr. William Hamilton said Wednesday's execution of Angel Nieves Diaz took 34 minutes - twice as long as usual - and required a rare second dose of lethal chemicals because the needles were inserted clear through his veins and into the flesh in his arms. The chemicals are supposed to go into the veins.Hamilton, who performed the autopsy, refused to say whether he thought Diaz died a painful death.
"I am going to defer answers about pain and suffering until the autopsy is complete," he said. He said the results were preliminary and other tests may take several weeks.
That seems like a waste of money. Despite his protests of innocence, even Angel Nieves Diaz's entry on Amnesty International admits that he is at least an accomplice to murder, which carries the same penalty.
Angel Diaz’s former girlfriend testified that on the night of the robbery, he had told her that Angel Toro had shot a man during the robbery. The testimony of two other witnesses, who had been in the bar at the time of the robbery, indicated that Angel Diaz was not the gunman. However, a jailhouse informant testified that when they had been held in the same jail, Angel Diaz had indicated that he had shot Joseph Nagy. Jailhouse informant testimony is notoriously unreliable.
It doesn't matter. If you rob a strip club and your partner shoots someone, you're both guilty of murder and should both be executed.
I really do feel sorry for Diaz's family -- it would be terrible to go through such an ordeal over one of my loved ones -- but I feel worse for the family members of Joseph Nagy who have gone without him since 1979.
There should be a clarification of purpose with regards to the death penalty. Is it simply an eye for an eye? Is it meant as a deterrent for would-be murderers? If it's the former, I can't think of a more benign punishment than death (as those who commit murders and other crimes that come with a death sentence don't much care about life, theirs or anyone else's).. and if it's the latter, well, let's just say that those who end up on death row didn't get there because they were fearful of the consequences of their actions.
Mark--If the death penalty is such a "benign punishment", why all the appeals? If life in prison was so bad, you would think that most prisoners would voluntarily end their appeals after a few years and welcome that sweet embrace of death, but that is not the case.
ucf: Life in prison should be bad.. or at least quite a bit worse than it is. It is currently too cushy and that's why you're seeing the appeals.. because the lesser of two evils is prison.. not because death, on its own, is such a deterrent or the ultimate of difficulties to face.
Mark: If the death penalty deters other potential criminals, that's great. The primary purpose, though, should simply be punishment. Swift justice, for all types of crime, should be deterrent enough.
To me, the point of the death penalty is its permanence. You never know when some nutcase liberal judge or governor is going to set all the criminals free to make himself feel better. "Life in prison" may or may not be life in prison. But once they're dead, then they'll always be dead.
MW: It doesn't, and it isn't.. unfortunately.
Mark: I don't understand your comment. Are you claiming that swift justice doesn't deter crime? Do you believe that we'd have the same amount of crime if we reduced the penalties? That defies all logic.
Or are you simply claiming that the death penalty doesn't deter criminals? If that's the case, couldn't it be because the chances of actually being executed are so small? Most death row inmates die there of old age! If the death penalty were swift and just, it would certainly have more of a deterrent effect than it does now.
But that's beside the point. The death penalty is good because it's what some criminals deserve. We don't execute shoplifters just because it would have a strong deterrent effect, so that's not a good reason to execute murderers either. We execute murderers because they deserve it.
Killing is wrong. It is violence. That cannot help society or a victim's family. It is spiritually wrong and even a three yaer old child knows that. The death penalty is expensive, does not deter, costs too much and is administered unfairly. Now we also know it is unconstitutional in its application. We have so many other ways to cope with criminal behavior that can create a more humane society that will beget more socially responsible people. What are we doing in the middle ages still? Helping the Bush family and their friends stay in politics? I want to move forward, I don't know about all of you. Enough of this brutality. It is disgusting.
MW: You said swift justice should be deterrent enough. I said it isn't.
As for capital punishment being a deterrent, well, the specific deterrent is obvious; the executed will never commit a crime again. The general deterrent, however, is less obvious and dubious. What are the motives for murder? If they're serious enough for someone to commit in spite of the potential that they themselves would be put to death (even if it were 100%).. the murder is going to be committed. The threat of incarceration is certainly enough to prevent most people from committing crimes of most sorts, violent or otherwise. The murderer, however, is different. Most are mentally impaired/damaged/abused in some way and far from able to recognize the weight of consequences (even an assured death penalty) *before* the crime is committed. After the crime is committed, some are quite apologetic and regret their actions, whether that sense of regret be fake or genuine. After the crime is committed, of course, it's too late. Capital punishment, even as a guarantee, was not enough to prevent the crime from being committed.
If the issue is one of reform in our criminal justice system, you'll find no argument from me there. We do indeed need to reform our criminal justice system.. massively. But the business of deterring crime, particularly violent crime and murder, is something we've never truly discovered the answer for. Capital punishment isn't it. "Life without" isn't it either. Perhaps we should go back to "cruel and unusual" punishments that are publicly viewable? I don't know.
You also brought up the issue of murderers "deserving" death. While I don't believe that to be a notion either maintained or disavowed by your religious faith, I do believe it to be a function of human nature. An eye for an eye is a very animal-like way to proceed.. and is probably closely related to the blood lust we all have somewhere within us, from which at least some murders originate. I, on the other hand, say that death is less than they deserve. Death is too simple.. too quick. The family of the victim in the original crime probably wants something far more than simply death. Should they get what they want in that regard? Should the public get to view the carrying out of this "retribution"? How would that deter crime? I don't know the answers to those questions either.
Mark: You spent a lot of time writing about deterrence, even after I said that I don't think that should be a consideration in punishment. The only motivations for punishment should be restitution (when possible, mostly for property crimes) and justice. Making examples out of people to scare others isn't justice. An argument can be made that justice will deter crime by its very nature, but that's a side issue.
So, to address that side issue, punishments that are of the right severity to be called "justice" will deter rational criminals -- by the definitions of "justice" and "rational". Criminals who are not detered are therefore irrational, and irration people with dangerous tendencies need to be dealt with differently than normal people. I'd favor taking pro-active action against dangerous irrational people by locking them up before they commit serious crimes, but that's a difficult thing to do as a society. I'd trust myself with that power, but could we set up an institution that would use the power properly?
Reagan cut funding to insane asylums in the 1980s and basically set thousands of dangerous crazy people free, most of which went on to commot crimes or live as homeless psychos. I'm not incredibly familiar with the specifics, but it sounds to me like we used to have a better system than we've got now, in that regard.
MW: The crimes for which capital punishment is the sentence are irrational because they're committed by irrational people or people who were in irrational states-of-mind when the crime was committed. As such, the "justice" of capital punishment is no deterrent.
I do not believe an institution could be set up to deal with dangerous irrational criminals that would use their power properly.
Mark: "The crimes for which capital punishment is the sentence are irrational because they're committed by irrational people or people who were in irrational states-of-mind when the crime was committed."
What? All murderers are irrational? That's nonsense.
MW: Assuming you're not being sarcastic.. let me say that of course they are. Murder is irrational.
MW: excellent comments regarding the insane and dealing with dangerously irrational people. The power to section someone in an asylum is the most power anyone can have -- it certainly needs very careful handling. I'm guessing it's still possible to be sectioned in the US - but is there some kind of quota or budget which cannot be exceeded? What is required to be sectioned?
Mark: I'm not being sarcastic at all! Why are all murderers irrational?
MW: Murder is not a rational act. Those who commit it are either acting irrationally or inherently irrational (making murder seem rational to them).
Murder can be completely rational. Ethics and legality are both different from rationality.
Ethics and legality are a part of what defines what is rational and what is irrational. The pure definition of rational deals with reason, logic, sensibility, and sanity. You cannot define rational without a context of ethics, morality, and/or legality because reason, logic, sensibility, and sanity are not defined without a similar context.
What is murder? Murder is defined almost exclusively by law, so you cannot exclude "legality" from the equation.
Mark: So... you claim that murder must always be irrational within the context of the existing law? Why? Because of the threat of severe punishment? It sounds to me like you're calling murder irrational because of the consequences... which is what deterrence is. (And of course this whole like of discussion started when you denied that the law deters crime.)
MW: Murder is irrational.. to people like us (non-murderers). Murder is either rational to those who commit it or they're indifferent to the irrationality. As I've said before, people who commit murder either don't think of the consequences or are not disturbed by them.