Catch-22 for Murderers

However you feel about capital punishment (I'm ambivalent for several reasons), you have to admit there is something screwy about this situation: Public defenders argue, in essence, that serial murderer Michael Ross should not be executed because he wants to be executed. They are trying to prevent Ross' execution, which was scheduled for Wednesday morning, by having him declared mentally incompetent.

"I owe these people," Ross says of his victims' families. "I killed their daughters. If I could stop the pain, I have to do that. This is my right. I don't think there's anything crazy or incompetent about that."

But a psychiatrist who will testify at Ross' competency hearing says convicts who spend years on death row develop "a desperate need to regain control," which "underlies an inmate's decision to volunteer [for execution] by waiving his appeals and dismissing his attorneys." That argument suggests such a decision is always suspect, calling into question the convict's ability to make it. In other words, only murderers who are not ready for execution are ready for execution.

Comments

sage | January 24, 2005, 2:49pm | #

It kind of sounds like he wants to stop his own pain-that of guilt. So let him spend the rest of his life making big rocks into small rocks. Or put him in a box and let him stick his head for one hour each day.

Charles Manson | January 24, 2005, 2:56pm | #

Don't kill me! I want to die!

andy | January 24, 2005, 2:58pm | #

This is the silliest shit I've ever heard. Fry the fucker then take the families out to dinner with the money you saved.

duncan | January 24, 2005, 2:58pm | #

Personally, I've often thought that keeping someone alive for the rest of their days in prison would be a worse punishment than death. Nothing to look forward to, yet no way to end it all.

Pete Guither | January 24, 2005, 3:04pm | #

Of course, the way we do things, if he wants to die, we won't let him. We're not satisfied unless we can kill him ourselves.

Why not have a self-service execution station?

thoreau | January 24, 2005, 3:12pm | #

I don't support capital punishment, but if an inmate really believes that death would be preferable to life in prison, he should be allowed to stay in a cell that contains a bed with pre-knotted sheets, a pipe on the ceiling to hang from, a TV with frayed electrical wiring, a pre-sharpened razor blade (chained down, so that it can't migrate out of the cell, of course), and any other implements of suicide that he may want.

I don't approve of killing other people, but far be it from me to block the exit for those who want it.

thoreau | January 24, 2005, 3:13pm | #

Oh, I forgot the hemlock!

skippy | January 24, 2005, 3:16pm | #

This seems to be leaving out a pretty important part of the story, as well as its most important dilemna.

By all accounts, Michael Ross is rooting for his death sentence simply to feed his narcissicm. He's granted dozens of interviews, wrote books, he's the center of attention, etc. Wanting to "end the pain" of his victims families hasn't factored high on his list. As one person involved in the case said "All the attention is on Mr. Ross, isn't that kind of messed up?" (paraphrased).

The interesting question here is, do we really want to give a scumbag what he wants? If he'd prefer a sensational death, is that a good reason to force him to instead sit anonymously in a jail cell for the rest of his days?

I don't know, but it's an interesting conundrum.
Check the story in the Boston Globe. I'm too lazy to look up the link.

p.s. Incidentally, I'm generally against the death penalty, but if they restricted its use to cases like this (as opposed to every petty-robbery-gone-wrong like in Texas) I'd find it difficult to get very exercised about it.

Socrates' last words | January 24, 2005, 3:18pm | #

I drank WHAT...?

Mr. Nice Guy | January 24, 2005, 3:23pm | #

This guy Ross was a serial rapist and murderer, and has been a guest of the State since the mid-80s. Enough already.

NoStar | January 24, 2005, 3:33pm | #

"Don't nobody move or the nigger gets it!"

Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles.

CodeMonkeySteve | January 24, 2005, 4:06pm | #

I'm against the death penalty for two reasons:
(1) It's one thing to convict someone "beyond a reasonable doubt", but Due Process requires that any non-reversable sentence be imposed only when guilt is "beyond any doubt whatsoever", something that rarely, if ever, happens.

(2) Death's too good for 'em. As sage and Duncan pointed out, a fate worse than death would be to make big rocks into small rocks for as long as modern medicine can keep them alive.

The only time the death penaltiy is appropriate is at the time and place of the attempted crime, and at the hands of the intended victim.

In certain cases where guilt is not in question, and the crime is severe enough, I would give the victim (or their family) the option of execution (but they'd have to/get to do it themselves).

Jennifer | January 24, 2005, 4:27pm | #

This is local news here in Connecticut; a couple weeks ago there was an appeal on the grounds that Ross shouldn't fry because he "suffers from sadistic personality disorder." In other words, we can't kill him because he ENJOYED committing his murders; only murderers who DISLIKE murder should be killed.

thePeaNutGallery | January 24, 2005, 4:31pm | #

Our wacky legal system!!!
I'm laughing to keep from crying.

Simon Bar Sinister | January 24, 2005, 4:31pm | #

The whole rocks thing is fine, but without cable TV and meat only once a week. And no soloflexes.

Best would be to keep just the multiple life killer's head alive. That way he knows he's in prison, can't run away, and really has a minimal cost to society. In a jar, of course. And none of that Conrad Baines' head on Rosy Greer's neck neither. That's just silly.

Paul | January 24, 2005, 5:05pm | #

I'm for capital punishment. Using these arguments against, I support my pro:

(1) It's one thing to convict someone "beyond a reasonable doubt", but Due Process requires that any non-reversable sentence be imposed only when guilt is "beyond any doubt whatsoever", something that rarely, if ever, happens.

Many verdicts are beyond any doubt whatsoever. When a crime is committed, physical evidence obtained, circumstances logically preclude anyone else from doing it, and you have a confession containing details of the crime that only the criminal could know, that removes any doubt. Sure, you could argue that space aliens did it using mental vibrations, but that's not doubt, that's just noise.

(2) Death's too good for 'em. As sage and Duncan pointed out, a fate worse than death would be to make big rocks into small rocks for as long as modern medicine can keep them alive.

That's a negatory. If it were true, then convicts headed for the [fill in your favorite form of execution here] wouldn't spend so much time fighting it. Plus, once executed, the chances of that convict ever committing another crime while on the inside is zero. Therefore, future crimes are prevented.

In certain cases where guilt is not in question, and the crime is severe enough, I would give the victim (or their family) the option of execution (but they'd have to/get to do it themselves).

Oh, and this one is often used to force people into thinking twice about the death penalty. While yes, this would reduce the number of executions- there are too many (present company included) who would gladly pull the lever, pull the trigger, hit the plunger if one of our loved ones was the victim. Performing the task would be like cleaning something off the bottom of our shoes.

Paul

pococurante | January 24, 2005, 5:10pm | #

Someone should tell Ross's PDs that Sadistic Personality Disorder isn't in the DSM anymore.

pococurante | January 24, 2005, 5:13pm | #

Oh, and a big QED + "duh!"

crimethink | January 24, 2005, 5:20pm | #

Due Process requires that any non-reversable sentence be imposed only when guilt is "beyond any doubt whatsoever", something that rarely, if ever, happens.

At first that sounds all well and good, but no punishment is reversible. Even if evidence surfaced that Ross was innocent, and he were freed, he's had 20+ years of his life taken away. Can the State give them back?

If capital punishment is state-sanctioned murder, incarceration is state-sanctinoed kidnapping.

Xrlq | January 24, 2005, 5:21pm | #

I'm with Andy; this one should be a no-brainer. He's earned the death penalty, let him have it. Otherwise, brace yourself for an influx of death row inmates who will now be able to escape Old Sparky just by pretending to want it.

thoreau | January 24, 2005, 5:28pm | #

At first that sounds all well and good, but no punishment is reversible.

Good point about terminology. The fact remains, however, that you can at least try to make some sort of amends to a person who was wrongly imprisoned, but you can't do all that much for somebody who was wrongly killed.

Douglas Fletcher | January 24, 2005, 5:35pm | #

"I've often thought that keeping someone alive for the rest of their days in prison would be a worse punishment than death."

If a life sentence is so much worse a punishment than death, why don't more of them kill themselves?

Ball of Confusion | January 24, 2005, 5:49pm | #

The fact remains, however, that you can at least try to make some sort of amends to a person who was wrongly imprisoned, but you can't do all that much for somebody who was wrongly killed.

Can you, though? What would you consider to be adequate compensation for wrongly spending 30 years of your life in prison, and what do you think the odds are that anyone would ever get it? I think crimethink's got a good point.

CodeMonkeySteve | January 24, 2005, 5:59pm | #

Paul: for any crime, there is *always* the possibility, however improbable, that the accused was framed and/or railroaded and/or lying about his confession. Evidence (even fingerprints or DNA) can be planted or doctored, witnesses intimidated, jurors bribed, ad infinitum. For that matter, someone could theoretically be tricked into thinking they *did* commit the crime, when they were in fact innocent. And are you going to let those space aliens get off scott-free?

Any just system must have the capacity for self-correction. Once you've flipped the switch/pushed the plunger/released the trap door, no correction can be made.

crimethink: Someone can always be released from prison, and (in theory) restituted to some degree for their improper incarceration. If the criminal's executed, there's really only one thing you can do: "Go through his pockets and look for loose change".

One final point against the death penalty: the condemned may still have information pertinant to some other crime. Take, for example, the Timothy McVeigh case, where even some of the victims' families were arguing against his execution, given additional information he must surely have had about his co-conspirators. With him dead, the rest go free, and the executioner becomes an accessory after the fact ...

CodeMonkeySteve | January 24, 2005, 6:03pm | #

Douglas: I see this as clinching proof that, for the worst offenders at least, prison is way too easy. What's the suicide rate of convicted murderes vs. the average public?

Jeremy Nimmo | January 24, 2005, 6:05pm | #

Hey, I thought you'd killed Gary Gilmore for good!

Stevo Darkly | January 24, 2005, 6:20pm | #

Masochist: Punish me! Punish me!

Sadist: No! No!

JenL | January 24, 2005, 6:42pm | #

In one interview/tv report I saw, they clarified Ross' stance a bit differently - he said if he was *guaranteed* life behind bars rather than execution, he would accept the life sentence. Without that guarantee, he wants to get it over with. In other words, he wants to end the uncertainty - one way or the other.

His current lawyer, arguing (at his request) that he should die, is actually against the death penalty, but feels Ross has the right to make this choice. The public defender apparently thinks that the depression caused by living under a death penalty amounts to a mental disorder and means that the person can't make a rational decision that he'd prefer to just get it over with.

crimethink | January 24, 2005, 6:43pm | #

crimethink: Someone can always be released from prison, and (in theory) restituted to some degree for their improper incarceration.

Key phrases being "in theory" and "to some degree." From my POV at least, there's no sum of money -- and no amount of non-monetary compensation -- that will make up for having spent decades of the prime of my life incarcerated in rape-land. Not to say that I'd rather be dead, but don't pretend that decades-long imprisonment is an undoable punishment.

If our justice system is not fair enough that we feel comfortable putting people to death (after appeal after appeal has been exhausted), then it isn't fair enough to feel comfortable throwing them in prison for long periods of time.

papercut | January 24, 2005, 8:43pm | #

Why should a death row inmate essentially be allowed a assisted suicide, when the same service is denied to good, law abiding folks?

Just Say No to the Death Penalty | January 24, 2005, 10:30pm | #

crimethink:

The fact that an innocent can't be adequately compensated doesn't mean the attempt shouldn't be made. What about civil injury, where one person's recklessness paralyzes another person. Should the victim never sue, because no compensation can ever be adequate? Nonsense! Whenever there is negligence, some form redress must be allowed, even if it is grossly inadequate. With state sanctioned kidnapping, compensation is always possible, whereas with state sanctioned murder, no redress is possible. Perhaps the family can win a wrongful death suit, but that doesn't help the principle victim.

Paul | January 24, 2005, 10:39pm | #

I read this book, it's called Catch-22.

crimethink | January 24, 2005, 11:03pm | #

Just Say No,

Nowhere did I argue that the state should never compensate people who have been wrongfully imprisoned. Just say no to straw men!

I am arguing that if you think the death penalty should be discontinued because it's irreversible, we'll have to discontinue imprisoning people too. True, more can be done to compensate innocent people who are released after decades of imprisonment, than those who are executed; but as I stated, there is no monetary award that could even come close to making up for the loss of 20-30 years of my life behind bars.

GinSlinger | January 25, 2005, 12:35am | #

No, Paul, Jeremy Nimmo was correct, the book you read was The Executioner's Song

littlescoutfinch | January 25, 2005, 1:43am | #

Although incarceration is irreversible as well, one can argue that incarceration is necessary, whereas capital punishment is not. We have to do _something_ with those we have convicted of crimes; reforms of the system notwithstanding, incarceration is what we've decided upon for the time being.

I think you've strawmanned the argument that Ross's attorneys are making. It's not that _anyone_ who wants to die is mentally incompetent, it's that Ross is mentally incompetent and therefore his waiver of his appeals is invalid. Their argument about the effects of being on death row does not necessarily create a Catch-22 � it is possible that the conditions on death row have caused or exacerbated Ross's poor mental health without necessarily meaning that death row would have the same effects on other condemned inmates. Even if their argument is the latter, however, the fact that it appears to be a Catch-22 doesn't make it wrong. Ross's lawyers are arguing, in essence, that life on death row is the equivalent of psychological torture. If someone who was being tortured physically chose to die, few would argue with the proposition that nobody can make any rational choices (including the choice to die) under those conditions. How is this so different?

raymond | January 25, 2005, 1:44am | #

On a libertarian board, libertarians arguing IN FAVOUR OF government violation of that most basic inalienable right, the right to Life.

On a libertarian board, libertarians arguing IN FAVOUR OF government violation of those most basic inalienable rights, the rights to Liberty and Property.

Government forcing citizens to become accomplices to ritual state killing.

Mention Social Security and gun control and libertarians go all red in the face and spluttery. "How dare they set up a programme to help old people avoid what used to be inevitable poverty? How dare they try to protect inner-city residents from drive-by shootings." Outrage.

But talk about the death penalty, and "libertarians" are out in force, baying for humiliation, torture, blood.

You've got a sick, sadistic prison system. You've got ritual killing. You've got the fruits of your labour taken by force to support these things.

Capital punishment is an attack on the very notion of fundamental individual rights. "Libertarians" my @ss.

Just Say No to the Death Penalty | January 25, 2005, 4:25am | #

crimethink said:
"I am arguing that if you think the death penalty should be discontinued because it's irreversible, we'll have to discontinue imprisoning people too. True, more can be done to compensate innocent people who are released after decades of imprisonment, than those who are executed; but as I stated, there is no monetary award that could even come close to making up for the loss of 20-30 years of my life behind bars."

You seem to be saying, "In for a penny, in for a pound. Once a non-compensible injustice is done, further injustice can be added for no additional cost. Since false state-sanctioned kidnapping can't be properly compensated, what the hell do we care about false state-sanctioned murder?"

Since you are hung up on the arguement of compensation, try this on: Your house burns down, complete with your momentoes, photos, rare collectables, and other irreplaceable items. Since you can't be properly compensated for your loss of these treasures, should you forego buying fire insurance? I mean, all the fire insurance will do is give you new housing. It can never replace the irreplaceable.

The analogy is this: state-sanctioned kidnapping is to burning down your house as state-sanctioned murder is to burning down your house with you in it. Some form of compensation is available in the first instance; no compensation is available in the second. It's not just a matter of degree, it's a matter of kind. If the state is make errors (and it will), then it should make errors that are (in theory) compensible. State-sanctioned murder is not such an error.

crimethink | January 25, 2005, 10:40am | #

Just Say No,

You're making the same mistake again. Go back and read my post and tell me where I say we shouldn't compensate people who were wrongfully jailed (or the families of those wrongfully executed).

Neither the death penalty nor decades-long imprisonment is reversible. So, if as CodeMonkeySteve stated, due process requires that irreversible punishments be proven absolutely beyond any doubt, the State can neither execute nor long imprison practically anyone for any crime. That is my argument -- have at it.

crimethink | January 25, 2005, 10:45am | #

raymond,

Not sure which of the many varieties of libertarianism you think we should follow, but I'm sure that the vast majority of libertarians agree that one of the few legit functions of govt is to take away the liberty and property (and possibly the life) of those who violate the rights of others.

Xrlq | January 25, 2005, 1:14pm | #

Sorry, Raymond, but you're the @ss here. There is no libertarian position on the death penalty, one way or the other.

dagny | January 25, 2005, 2:50pm | #

And I'm sure Social Security is the only thing that prevents all those retirees with two houses and a motor home that costs $100 to fill up with gas from inevitable poverty, and every inner-city drug dealer has a totally legal and licensed gun.

Paul | January 25, 2005, 2:56pm | #

But talk about the death penalty, and "libertarians" are out in force, baying for humiliation, torture, blood.

I disagree. Going back to refuting the 'death is too good for 'em' argument, I reject this, but still support the death penalty.

The 'death's too good form em' argument seems to be something that stems from the idea that one is against the death penalty for lofty intellectual reasons, but is still 'tough on crime' so as not to be pidgeon-holed as a limp-writsted softy.

I do not believe that torture, humiliation and/or blood is an ideal to uphold. IF death were too good for 'em, as some say, then we could really be doing much more to make their lives miserable, but yet we don't. If we're going to keep ALL offenders alive, regardless of their crime, they should be treated with dignity and compassion (within the boundaries of their lifetime confinement). I do not believe the death penalty is inhumane- and violates the priciples of 'right to life'. To be consistent with an 'absolute right to life' regardless of the violations against others' right to life, then we'd better start closing the abortion clinics, too.

I strongly believe that a just system can reasonably take the most horrendous violators of that right to life, and end theirs as long as a stringent due process is followed.

The ONLY anti death-penalty argument that carries ANY weight, is the lifetime possibility of self-correction. This too, is debatable, but at least it carries wieght. Any other argument is hopelessly, forgive me, tortured.

Paul

raymond | January 25, 2005, 4:29pm | #

To be consistent with an 'absolute right to life' regardless of the violations against others' right to life, then we'd better start closing the abortion clinics, too.

Perhaps. However, that's not my "cause" here right now.

I believe that the fundamental individual rights are inalienable. They cannot be given away, or taken away.

I believe that even those who commit the most "horrendous" crimes - adultery, homosexual acts, murder, blasphemy - do not and cannot forfeit their right to Life.

I believe that capital punishment as it is practised in the US is "inconstant, uncertain, ... arbitrary".

I believe the only valid role of government is to secure the rights of the people. The only valid powers of government come from the people, and the government may by right do only what the individual may do.

And I think the first victim of capital punishment is the concept of the right to Life. And while I feel sympathy for the innocent people condemned to death - and for the mentally ill, the retarded, those who were children at the time of their crime - what really worries me is... I could be next.

ps -

You know how some businesses say, for example, "For every $10 you spend in our store, $1 goes to Save the Children or Tsunami Relief or some such charity? Well, in Texas, there should be signs warning "For every hamburger you buy, 10¢ goes toward the ritual killing of a defenseless human being" or "Buy a shirt and a donation of $1 to Kill A Mentally Retarded Person will be made in your name."

Paul | January 25, 2005, 6:56pm | #

"For every hamburger you buy, 10? goes toward the ritual killing of a defenseless human being" or "Buy a shirt and a donation of $1 to Kill A Mentally Retarded Person will be made in your name."

While I understand your being repelled by knowing that you're being forced to contribute to a practice you disagree with through taxation, these examples are mere hyperbole. Simply changing the language doesn't change the Truth(tm). Or maybe I could more accurately say, changing the statements gives a perception to a different, yet equally True(tm) concept. Example "For every hamburger you buy, 10c goes toward the execution of society's most dangerous murderers". Or, "...10c goes toward maintaining the lifestyle of the states most dangerous criminals" (if say, the death penalty were outlawed). Oh, and "Defenseless human being" is, I'm sorry to say, a tortured 'truth'. Yes, at the time of the execution, the individual is of course, defenseless. So was Carla Faye Tucker's victim...

littlescoutfinch | January 25, 2005, 7:05pm | #

While it's true that most libertarians accept a criminal justice system as one of the legitimate functions of the state, I've always understood that acceptance as stemming from a belief that a criminal justice system is necessary to protect the liberty of citizens (i.e., to prevent crime). Following that logic, though, shouldn't libertarians object to a criminal justice system that does more than is necessary to prevent crime?

To demonstrate my point, many progressives (myself included) believe that welfare is part of a just state and that welfare recipients are morally worthy of government assistance. Libertarians generally respond that it's unreasonable for me to tax them to enforce my morality.

Regardless of whether capital defendants deserve the death penalty, how can you tax me to enforce your morality if I can't tax you to enforce mine?

Xrlq | January 26, 2005, 12:29am | #

I have a question for the "death's too good for 'em" crowd. Seeing we all agree that death is too harsh of a penalty for some crimes (petty theft, for example), and you claim it is too light of a penalty for others (capital murder), you should have little trouble identifying an intermediate group of crimes for which death is "just right." So, what are they? Rape? Voluntary manslaughter? DUI? What, exactly?

raymond | January 26, 2005, 12:52am | #

Example "For every hamburger you buy, 10c goes toward the execution of society's most dangerous murderers".

In January, Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois suspended all executions in that state after 13 death row inmates were found to have been wrongly convicted. Mother Jones

Ryan Matthews spent five years on Louisiana�s death row for a crime he did not commit. Seventeen years old at the time he was arrested, Matthews was sentenced to death for the shooting death of Tommy Vanhoose, a convenience store owner, in Bridge City, Louisiana. DNA testing results both exonerated Matthews and revealed the identity of the actual perpetrator. Innocence Project

No further comment needed, imo.


Oh, and "Defenseless human being" is, I'm sorry to say, a tortured 'truth'. Yes, at the time of the execution, the individual is of course, defenseless.

QED, then.


In the US, certain kinds of murder (eg, black-on-white) are considered to be "the most heinous crime".

By reserving and arguing in favour of the use of capital punishment for only "the most heinous crimes", though, one is arguing in favour of capital punishment in countries in which the most despicable crime is, say, blasphemy. Or adultery. Or homosexual acts. Or drug dealing.

Defending the death penalty means rejecting the notion of inalienable fundamental individual rights. George W Bush's promising respect for human rights throughout the world is just more cynical hypocrisy. Though sickening, it's only to be expected. Libertarians (those "who advocate maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state") screaming "fry the fucker" make me shake my head in disbelief.


There is no libertarian position on the death penalty, one way or the other.

If that is true, then libertarianism is meaningless.

Xrlq | January 26, 2005, 1:22pm | #

There is no libertarian position on the death penalty, one way or the other.

If that is true, then libertarianism is meaningless.

Not meaningless at all; it just doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Libertarianism means promoting liberty, not life per se. Prohibiting certain acts (e.g., victimless crime laws) offends libertarian values, no matter how light the penalty may be. Prohibiting others (e.g., murder, rape and other victimful crimes) does not, no matter how serious the penalty may be. Once you figure out what should and should not be a crime, how severely you punish the remaining crimes is a practical question, and may also involve some moral dilemmas, but it cannot be decided according to libertarian principles. "Life-arian" ones, maybe, although even then, it's debatable what conclusion such principles should lead to (some say that any state sponsored killing cheapens life, others say that failure to avenge the most heinous murders does). But it is a life question, not a liberty one.

Think about it this way: when was the last time any self-proclaimed libertarian seriously argued that life was an unalienable/inalienable right, but liberty, property and/or the pursuit of happiness are not? They say it all the time, probably because they have no clue what "inalienable" means. They assume it means that the big, bad state can't take it away on a whim, which is good. The state shouldn't be able to kill, imprison or rob its citizens arbitrarily. But that's not what inalienable means. Inalienable property rights don't just mean that the government can't take your land; they also mean you can't sell it yourself, a most unlibertarian concept. If life, liberty and property really are in/unalienable rights, then not only does it follow that an individual cannot relinquish his own right to life by committing a heinous murder, he can't reliquish his right to liberty, either, and can therefore never be imprisoned for his crime. Like it or not, that's where your pseudo-libertarian argument against the death penalty leads.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear from the "death is too good for them" crowd as to which lesser crimes meet the Goldilocks standard. [Locusts chirping in background.]

raymond | January 26, 2005, 3:27pm | #

It's the rights which are inalienable, not the life, property, liberty.

Do you think I'm so stupid as to claim immortality for man?

Xrlq | January 31, 2005, 12:45am | #

Totally beside the point. Are you seriously arguing the government can never deprive a citizen of liberty or property, even as punishment for a crime?