The purpose of a death penalty is not deterrence so much as it is to provide victims a sense of social justice, and to prevent people from taking in law into their own hands. Death penalties for petty crimes can break down the social order just as surely as life in prison for too many crimes.

Police stop enforcing the law, and victims stop reporting crimes when justice is seen as either too harsh or too lenient.

While I admire Mr Flynt's stand,, it was not for paralyzing him, that this bozo got the death penalty, and therefore in my opinion, he is not the one to be either offering forgiveness, or demanding punishment.
The relatives of the people killed have more moral authority on this issue.

I could certainly live with a society where the harshest penalty imposed was life in prison, as long as it was really life in prison, but the bleeding heats really undercut themselves on this when they started releasing these bozos in the 70's who went on to kill again, sometimes multiple times.

Returning to that possibility would not be an improvement over what we have now.

Also, by the way, this is a state issue and not a federal one, and likely to remain so.

In the last 35 years my state has executed exactly one guy, and he really, really deserved it.

While I admire Mr Flynt's stand,, it was not for paralyzing him, that this bozo got the death penalty, and therefore in my opinion, he is not the one to be either offering forgiveness, or demanding punishment. The relatives of the people killed have more moral authority on this issue.

Dumbest thing I'm likely to read all day.

Of course, when you're dealing with ambiguous and completely subjective concepts like "moral authority," you can say anything and pronounce it "moral authority."

But since we're not dealing with facts (it's Isab's post, big surprise), we can point out that the dead victims of Mr. Franklin's killing spree are in no position to offer forgiveness. In fact, we could be completely callous about it and argue that since the families of the murdered victims were in no way bodily harmed by Mr. Franklin's actions, they don't really have the "moral authority" to offer forgiveness, either.

In time their pain of loss will be mitigated, but Larry Flynt will never walk again. There is no healing or mitigating the fact that the man was crippled. So, one could reasonably argue, despite the penalties involved, that Larry Flynt is the only one with the "moral authority" (whatever the hell that stupid term is supposed to mean) to offer forgiveness.

Or we could actually comment on his opinions they way they were expressed. He was arguing against the merits of the death penalty and he raised some valid points, such as the cost of prosecuting capital offenses in the U.S. and the fact that it doesn't deter crime. Wow! What a concept! We could actually talk about what he did say, instead of erecting stupid straw men.

"Well - harrumph! harrumph! - he doesn't have the moral authority to decide whether Franklin should get the death penalty. How dare he survive being shot, paralyzed for life, then presume to decide whether his attacker should live or die!"

He didn't actually try to claim he did have the right to make that decision.

Duh.

The fact remains, that Mr. Franklin did not get the death penalty for what he did to Mr. Flynt. Nor would he have, if that had been all he did.

The death penalty was imposed by Missouri for the premeditated murder of two of their citizens.

I looked up the laws for malicious wounding and attempted murder and anything else I can think of and you're probably right about that. (Leaving out any opinions I may have about the justness of sparing someone the severest penalty for leaving someone a paralytic for life.)

But my point was, he was not claiming any "moral authority" to decide whether Franklin should get the death penalty. He raised valid points as to why he objects to it. He also said that he felt that the death penalty was too merciful. That he thought life in a 3x6 cell for the rest of his life would be the worse penalty. (And he has a point.)

I should also point out that it's debatable whether the victims' families get any sense of closure from the death penalty. Matthew Shepard's parents didn't seem to think they would. The pleaded with the jury to spare the lives of Aaron McKinney and Russell P. Henderson. And they got their wish.

Some years before his untimely death, Tony Snow came to the conclusion that his opposition to abortion was inconsistent with supporting the death penalty, and he became a death penalty opponent. Isab states that Franklin got the death penalty not for what he inflicted on Flynt in particular, but for the threat to social order that his actions posed. This is a good point. Patrick counters with another good point: do we really want the government to have the authority to do that? The government is supposed to be the protector of the lives of its citizens. Further, when we consider that in the U.S. the government is an extension of ourselves (at least in theory), the question becomes: do we really want to give ourselves the authority to do that?

The counter-counter argument is that the death penalty is the only 100% sure-fire method of ensuring that the person so penalized never commits another crime, and never profits from the crime that he committed. However, the counter to that is that if our justice system worked properly, that wouldn't be necessary; employing the death penalty for that reason is covering up a failing with another failing.

My own opinion is that the death penalty, as it currently works, appears to be ineffective as a deterrent. Most of the material I've read indicates that surety and swiftness of punishment is a better deterrent than severity of punishment.

This is a tired, old argument: pay to feed a killer for the rest of his life, three hots and a cot, no matter what the economy does, while a family or multiple families struggle with the loss, or simply kill him.

While making this decision, ignore the plain fact that it IS completely possible to determine guilt with certainty in a number of these cases, individually tried; ignore the difference between the actions of the State, acting after the fact, and a successful defense by an intended victim using deadly force.

Suppress the fact known by all police: that the use of deadly force at the scene in a successful self-defense often saves the State a fortune, in action where there is no doubt whatsoever about the identity of the aggressor.

When speaking of the "costs" of capital punishment, suppress notice of the difference between aggressor and intended victim when speaking of a deadly incident: we consider "reasonable fear for her life" as exonerating the intended victim completely, but bend over backwards to excuse a killer who often engages in lengthy, premeditated campaigns to approach said victim, or multiple victims. Make no mistake: this is necessary to preserve the concept of "innocence until proven guilty" at the core of American justice, but subsequent maneuvers have made a joke of the system in hundreds of cases. These are individual trials. Blanket policy, shown to fail at hundreds of lesser tasks, need not apply here.

Some will pooh-pooh the idea of "moral authority" while exercising it themselves. There's a new wrinkle right here, in that this is especially hilarious to see when the poster won't take a side or explain objections on other, more minor issues, such as what the Affordable Care Act will cost him as he appears to support it.

I support capital punishment because of these things:
1) it is possible to determine both guilt and the probability of repeating the crime in hundreds of cases.
2) it is more humane to kill a vicious animal than pen it up the rest of its life.
3) no one who has ever sat in Old Sparky has ever been released to kill again.
4) the result is the same as a successful personal defense at the scene.

I wonder how many opponents of capital punishment also want to prosecute intended victims for resisting crime? You want a good giggle test for how deserving a killer or rapist is of a secure, long life in prison? Take him home and introduce him to your family. Go to sleep in his presence. You'll see what to do right away, as opposed to acting like this is some academic enterprise.

I bet you think a prison guard is sort of the dregs of law enforcement because he keeps people in a cage. That's an interesting "tell" about the inconsistency of the public on this issue. Why, those people should be heroes for confining that human waste.

Gee, they're not. Prison isn't such a noble thing then, is it? We even call prisoners "detainees" in efforts to avoid the awful truth. Do you buy that, when you hear it on the news?

It has been said that there is a prison industry, bent on arresting as many Americans as possible, cashing in on crime. That industry needs numbers. If you do not have the population, you do not have the $$ for that industry. Okay. Want maximum-security prisons for those killers and rapists you're going to feed forever? Install another billion-dollar prison. Those guys live a LONG time.

Meanwhile, what is the real worth of some vile prisoner? Did you rush off to protest when Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison? Okay, maybe you had to work. How about a letter to the editor? No, it didn't matter to you. Many readers of this blog were actually relieved when "prison justice" was carried out. Dahmer wasn't getting out, and now we don't have to feed him. Oh, no, what a shame, huh? But such people cringe at the idea of pulling a switch on Dahmer.

I'm not shying away from having to kill my own dog when he gets too old and suffers. Truly timid people (given that they have the means) will hire someone else for that dirty work, or abandon the animal. Not having the plain guts to recognize that some animals walk on two feet has generated this problem.

"Moral authority." LOL. Be sure you're talking about the person or process in discussing that. Denigrate the term, identify yourself as someone who simply cowers at the idea of making a necessary judgment.

I think we should execute somewhat more people and imprison far fewer and sharply distinguish the roles of punishment, quarantine, and rehabilitation - roles that prison performs poorly. I think prison is the cruel and unusual punishment. It is a terrible punishment in terms of deterrence because the reality is worse than the imagining (the opposite of what an psychologically informed punishment should be)and dragging out he punishment phase for years and years brutalizes people who are going to end up back in society.

Why not execute all the real baddies and the others treat to a short period of punishment that is sharp and quick and then a humane period of quarantine.

The number of people we imprison in brutalizing conditions is a scandal to a free society.

Assume the death penalty is abolished and the maximum sentence for murder is life w/o parole.

The problem with a man serving a sentence of life w/o parole is that man is a man with nothing to lose. He can kill another inmate, a guard, or escape and kill someone outside of prison. And the worst sentence he would get is...life w/o parole, again ! The death penalty should be preserved for the worst offenders even if it is rarely used.

Plus, there are some horrible people whose guilt is not in doubt..think Ted Bundy or Dahmer. I am insulted that that these people like Bundy or Dahmer breathe the same air I do. Death is the the best thing we as a society can do to protect the rest of us.

Deer Larry Flynt:

Which is more cruel?

a) executing a confessed murderer
b) locking him away for the rest of his life with no hope of release

I mean, he has to be locked away for the rest of his life. I don't think there's any means of rehabilitating such a hateful soul. Unless you want to try a frontal lobotomy?

Yeah, that's what I thought. As Nick points out, a man who has nothing has nothing to lose. So next, what? send him to a supermax facility so he can sit in an isolated cell for 23 hours a day, and an hour out in the yard alone?

Maybe Jay Nixon ought to just commute his sentence to time served. Certainly would be cheaper for the people of Missouri.

I R A Darth Aggie: Which is more cruel?

a) executing a confessed murderer
b) locking him away for the rest of his life with no hope of release

Actually, that's his intent. That's precisely the reason why he wants.

And I disagree that he has nothing left to lose. He can spent his days in prison as part of the prison community. Or he can spend his days in solitary. Bad as things get in prison, it can get worse.

I'm for the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt of the murderers guilt. A Dahmer, this Franklin guy, and others like them. What needs to happen is a reform of the justice system so that vicious animals like them are put down fairly quickly and painlessly.

They are useless to society and a waste of money to keep them alive.

But if there can be doubt about the guilt, like the case of the West Memphis Three, then life without parole should be the punishment.

So what have you gained after putting the repeat killer in solitary confinement?

Jim P. They are useless to society and a waste of money to keep them alive.

And it's a greater waste of money to prosecute a capital crime and execute someone. Life without parole is cheaper than prosecuting a capital crime and executing someone. If nothing else, get that idea through your thick head.

Not hard. $$ Prosecute capital offense and execute a criminal > $$ Life without parole.

Get it now?

"If nothing else, get that idea through your thick head."

Always good seeing Patrick use that gentle persuasion. I think we all get it, Patrick, you piece of shit.

"If nothing else, get that idea through your thick head."

Always good to see Patrick using his gifts of persuasion.

Life without parole is cheaper than prosecuting a capital crime and executing someone. If nothing else, get that idea through your thick head. -- Patrick at October 18, 2013 2:09 PM

Did you notice this sentence:

What needs to happen is a reform of the justice system so that vicious animals like them are put down fairly quickly and painlessly.

For the Dahmer types they shortcut the appeals, disallow going to SCOTUS, keep it in the state court. The state appeals court is the preferred level and rarely goes into the state's SCOTUS.

This guy played the system. They were caught on camera. They were caught hours later with the money and the guns. Appel pleaded guilty and asked for the death penalty. Essentially there was no question. That should have gone to an appeals court, the governor signs the death warrant and then he should have been strapped into old sparky. The fiasco that follows should have never have happened. And there should be a process where if a governor refuses to sign a death warrant that the state AG can go to the state's house or senate and get a death warrant.

The process is now so fucked up because the appeals go through all the state courts and then are repeated through the federal courts. In addition you have the anti-capital punishment groups.

So if there was a reform of the system, so a case of questionable guilt is not eligible for the death penalty, but those that are without question are done quickly then the cost factors change.

Patrick: why is that? And: why do you appear to find the status quo acceptable - again?

If the death penalty was certain and swift for red handed crimes, somehow I think we might be able to "bend the cost curve a bit" to favor it over lifetime imprisonment.

The bleeding hearts drive up the costs through endless appeals, and then try and use those self generated judicial costs as an argument against capital punishment.

I used to be a big supporter of the death penalty. But not anymore.

Government has simply shown again and again that nobody in it is either wise enough, or moral enough, to be trusted with that power.

Now, if a victim, a cop, or even a bystander sees a rape or robbery or hostage-holding in progress, and can stop it right now by blowing away the bad guy, then as far as I'm concerned, blast away. Not only is there a good reason for that killing -- it will likely save life in real time -- but it will also be reviewed afterward by both the authorities and the public, and if they decide it wasn't called for, they can punish the killer.

But after the perp is in custody? No. There's no longer any big hurry. Let justice be done, but slowly and carefully. Get it right.

This especially goes for cases where either the perp or the victim are controversial public figures. A person's life shouldn't depend on whether the public (or a biased news show) hates him for political reasons.

Government has simply shown again and again that nobody in it is either wise enough, or moral enough, to be trusted with that power. -- jdgalt at October 18, 2013 6:54 PM

I quite agree. That is why I put the caveat in of provable cases. One that happened in my area was the Widmer trial. You don't have enough proof that he probably did it to the point that he is irredeemable. But someone that is in the Appel class is different.

So I view it as a combo resolution. Ask questions, investigate, and then decide the charges. But the vicious animal needs to be put down.

I don't think facts support the death penalty as a deterrent.

A guy who finds a picture of a black and white fucking so enraging he'd try to commit murder is beyond deterrents.

We live in a country where our Justice System denies DNA testing to cases that have been proven to have probable doubt and a simple DNA could clear things up. Where a prosecutor is commended on number of convictions NOT accuracy. Where the amount of $ determines if you get off and our young men are treated as targets.

Unless we stop being the country with the most prisoners in the world I'm against it. The system is not just.

I'm with jdgalt.

"Unless we stop being the country with the most prisoners in the world I'm against it. The system is not just."

This is so bereft of logic I'm surprised you can put clothes on correctly.

If you look at the local "jail report" rag, or access the Bureau of Crime Statistics Web site, you'll notice something you SHOULD know, but do not: the USA contains a lot of criminals.

Not "little Johnny next door who got life for a gram of pot". Killers. Rapists.

People who look at you as a tasty meal.

Some of them learned that crime is an acceptable lifestyle. There's a lot more drugs being done near you than you can even imagine, too, and despite what some here say, that is a fucking tragedy - and no, they will not revert to apple pie and baseball if you magically legalize drugs!

Now, your second sentence isn't even on the same planet - it isn't tied logically to the first here in any way.

That "the system is not just" is just thrown out there as something someone used to "conventional wisdom" might agree with. My question is - are you going to cherry-pick, and complain, or are you going to suggest a solution, including the finding and initiatives needed to correct the problem?

Here's the giggle test: Felons currently in jail have killed more Americans than died in Vietnam.

Now what do you want to do with them?

(I know, too many questions in one post.)

Wow, this is even more strange:

"I don't think facts support the death penalty as a deterrent."

"A guy who finds a picture of a black and white fucking so enraging he'd try to commit murder is beyond deterrents."

Did you even read what you wrote - out loud?

No deterrent - beyond deterrents.

Nothing will stop this guy, and you think this doesn't support killing him?

Yes I read what I wrote and you're going to find this incredibly shocking-I don't find them mutually exclusive.

I know crazy.

When you want to kill someone you are beyond deterrents so any so called deterrent like the death penalty wouldn't work. That's why I think people using that excuse for the death penalty are full of baloney.

Got that explanation? Ok cool.

And yeah I'm cool with not killing him.

"That "the system is not just" is just thrown out there as something someone used to "conventional wisdom" might agree with. My question is - are you going to cherry-pick, and complain, or are you going to suggest a solution, including the finding and initiatives needed to correct the problem?"

Ah that ol' tired argument. "AND WHAT DO YOU DO! WHAT DO YOU DO TO MAKE THIS COUNTRY BETTER?!"

I dunno my solution is to legalize drugs but I know how your face turns into a sour-puss when I say that.

The truth is, the vast majority of murderers actually get away with it. This is doubly true for the premeditated variety.

No deterrence is good enough for someone who rightly believes they will not be caught.

Unfortunately the argument that the death penalty does not deter crime, fails on another front. It is impossible to know how many people might not commit murder because of the possibility of getting caught or sentenced to death, just like it is not possible to know how many criminals are deterred from burglaries and assault in states with concealed, and open carry. The lower crime rates in those places suggest, it might be quite a few.

Here is the thing the severity of the punishment matters less than the likelihood of punishment.

I actually think shame is the biggest deterrent of all (or the biggest fuel).

Truth is I've read the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

Plus I like donating to the Innocence Project and it makes me cringe that we punish the innocent to punish the guilty.

"The bleeding hearts drive up the costs through endless appeals, and then try and use those self generated judicial costs as an argument against capital punishment."

I'm OKAY with that. Too many innocent people get convicted for my liking.

I do not want to punish the innocent to get to the guilty. I would think you would use the argument that they get so many appeals as something PRO death penalty (i.e. we make sure they have all the available avenues not to die).

causticf: I think we all get it, Patrick, you piece of shit.

I'm really very nice, once you get to know me.

Isab: The bleeding hearts drive up the costs through endless appeals, and then try and use those self generated judicial costs as an argument against capital punishment.

I'm OKAY with that. Too many innocent people get convicted for my liking.

I do not want to punish the innocent to get to the guilty. I would think you would use the argument that they get so many appeals as something PRO death penalty (i.e. we make sure they have all the available avenues not to die).

I agree. I'm perfectly fine with making sure no innocent people are wrongfully executed. Too much money? Tough shit. We should continue to do everything we can to make sure that no one (if that's at all possible) is ever wrongfully executed.

"I agree. I'm perfectly fine with making sure no innocent people are wrongfully executed. Too much money? Tough shit. We should continue to do everything we can to make sure that no one (if that's at all possible) is ever wrongfully executed.
Posted by: Patrick at October 19, 2013 3:10 PM

I am more concerned that there are a few people in prison for life who are not guilty of the crime(s) they were convicted of.

But there are also hundreds more absolutely guilty murderers out walking the streets.
Our imperfect justice system is never going to get it right a hundred percent of the time, but it is better than the alternative, which would be street justice, and lynch mobs.

If you truly believe life in prison is more punitive than the death penalty, you should be concerned about this also.

The innocence project has searched high and low for an example of an execution of an innocent person. It would be a major victory for them, in their quest to end the death penalty, if they could, with certainty, identify a wrongly executed convict. They have yet to find one. That whole, proving a negative thing, is a tough hurdle to clear.

"I am more concerned that there are a few people in prison for life who are not guilty of the crime(s) they were convicted of."

Yup I'm concerned about that too (shockingly you can be concerned about more than one thing).

"But there are also hundreds more absolutely guilty murderers out walking the streets. "

Yes we are all aware of that, but my concern is more for innocent people wrongfully convicted. Some murderers who "get away" with it never go on to commit another murder, some do. We just don't know. And the Justice System is not here for revenge. So if a murderer got away with it because there just wasn't enough evidence OK. I'm not happy about it but ok. Ted Kennedy, OJ, etc. It happens I know.

But an innocent person getting convicted by our government?Nope, nope and nope.

To me there is a huge difference between getting away with it, and getting convicted for something you didn't do.

To me there is a huge difference between getting away with it, and getting convicted for something you didn't do.
Posted by: Ppen at October 19, 2013 5:31 PM

I would tend to agree with you but there are very few true innocents in prison, except for the drug arrests, which should be ratcheted way back in my opinion. These are not violent felons who belong in jail, unless they are bumping off the competition to generate more market share.

A lot of the wrongly convicted have a long rap sheet for previous crimes, even though they may be innocent of the specific one they were convicted for. I am less sympathetic for these repeat offenders.

Many of them are also mentally ill, but institutionalizing them for their own and everyone else's protection, is no longer socially approved.

This guy will commit more of the same if he ever gets out of prison. What will we tell the loved ones of his next victim(s)? Oops? Execution is immoral?

Why would you let him out of prison?

You don't have to let him go, ppen. There is such a thing as escape. Maybe you missed the recent news where papers were forged, and the system let two killers out.

Here is how well "life without parole" works.

Now imagine an abusive husband or boyfriend doing that, after he killed another family member.

Oh, yeah. Go into witness protection, yourself, because somebody thinks it's better to let the killer live out his years in jail...

...to ponder his unfinished business.