The Wisconsin parade massacre brings me to something followers may find surprising: I support the death penalty, but not in the way it is or has been ever applied in America. This is different, and somewhat complex, so please read this all before commenting. There are.../1
...elements of thinking about punishment for crime: One involves the egregiousness of the crime, the kind of crime that shocks the conscience. This crime fits that: The willful murder of children and the elderly during a Christmas parade for what appears to be simply.../2
...an attempt to escape another crime is abhorrent to the soul. Other than someone having a heart attack at the wheel, it is hard to conceive of anything that would make this less horrific. Then there is the issue of deterrence - not to others, but to the perpetrator. The.../3
..."nothing left to lose" issue is one that is not addressed sufficiently. Perhaps the perpetrator of this crime had already hit the ridiculous "three strikes you're out" standard, which means an automatic life in prison. So, for a sociopath, the thought might be, maybe he.../4
...could get away if he ran over people who were in his way. It's the same problem with someone who kidnaps and sexually abuses a child - if the crime amounts to a mandatory life in prison, murdering the child decreases the chance of conviction with no increase in possible.../5
...punishment. There *must* be a risk of increased punishment, if only to create an uncertainty in the mind of the perpetrator about whether it matters if they kill.
But...and this is the big but...the standard for bringing such a case must change..../6
But...and this is the big but...the standard for bringing such a case must change..../6
...no more "beyond a reasonable doubt" for both conviction and sentencing. Beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction and beyond doubt for a sentence of the death penalty. Eyewitness testimony of fewer than x number of people alone, jailhouse snitches, etc. Standards would have../7
...be developed by an independent commission of what constitutes "beyond doubt" - video recordings and fingerprints perhaps. And such sentences can only be brought in instances where there are also underlying crimes that "build up" to life in prison. That way, there *is*.../8
...something to lose when a prisoner serving a life sentence murders another prisoner, or when the child kidnapper then kills the child. The bottom line: The death penalty must be applied for purpose of serving as a deterrent against the perpetrator committing other crimes.../9
...when in the process of committing a first crime. Prosecutors must have a higher standard for using that penalty that will require far greater quality of evidence and reasons for using it. In other words, there is a reason for using the death penalty other than bloodlust.../10
...but there are valid reasons why it should remain in the prosecution's weaponry, so as to make sure that criminals who do not decide they have nothing left to lose, and thus can commit the most horrific acts without consequence.
end
end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
