On 11/2/2017 11:41 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:


There is a different question of what to do with a mass murderer who is
rational) or perhaps "rational enough"). I do not support the death
penalty- oddly, perhaps, on conservative rather than liberal grounds-
but these people are very, very dangerous and in at least some cases
(perhaps most or even all) it is not safe to turn them loose to likely
do it again. Indeed, turning them loose would just be stupid in those
cases. Just as we do not "turn loose" those adjudicated as mentally ill
and dangerous- they are under lifelong supervision and court-ordered
psychiatric treatment.

I think part of the motivation for killing a heinous criminal is the
certainty that he will never commit such a crime again. For example,
I've seen pro death penalty arguments describing how someone who served
time and earned parole killed again on release. And others fear
successful appeals, where a murderer (or worse) goes free on some legal
technicality.

So I wonder about a sort of "legal death" that involves life sentence
with no, absolutely no, right of appeal. It would have to be reserved
for cases so perfectly certain that the death penalty would be justified.

On the other hand: I note that most other prosperous, civilized
countries seem to function quite well without the death penalty, or
(AFAIK) the sort of "legal death" that I'm describing. Their murder
rates and violence rates are certainly far better than ours.


--
- Frank Krygowski