Beretta and the Wolf

[chequita guevara]

Why does anyone care? I live in Florida, why do California murder trials get on my news?

[Dis]

because he used to be a celebrity. Not that anyone cares about this guy anymore. I never even heard of berretta before this.

[The Mad Monk]

Baretta set the standard in it's day for cop dramas, and Blake got an Emmy out of it. The cockatoo was cool, too.

[Space05us]

I never even heard of berretta before this.

[Dis]

not all of us are old farts.

the earliest cop shows I can remember are Starsky and Hutch, Barney Miller,

[Space05us]

not all of us are old farts.

the earliest cop shows I can remember are Starsky and Hutch, Barney Miller,

You dont have to be old, Berretta is/was one of the worlds largest handgun manufacturers.

[Space05us]

But you guys are talking about the show, oops.

[Dis]

yeah I know about the gun . My brother owns one. I shot it, nice weapon.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Dissident
not all of us are old farts.

the earliest cop shows I can remember are Starsky and Hutch, Barney Miller,

Baretta was aired around the same time as these...

[Dis]

actually both of those shows I mentioned I watched in syndication. I never seen them when the originally aired on the networks. I guess Berretta never made it to syndication where I live. Or I didn't like what I saw and don't remember ever seeing it.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the death penalty is wrong.

I disagree.

Here's my theory:
We live in a society that is a construct of laws, rules, and morals. In a Republic, that construct is basically a product of the combined will of the people (at least that's how Liberal theory goes). People are (or at least should be) free to live in any way they choose, so long as their actions fit within the constraints of those laws, rules, and morals. The basic, unspoken agreement to live within those boundaries is the basis of the social contract. The majority finds these boundaries to be the boundaries of proper society, and those who live within those boundaries are, by definition, living in that society in an acceptable fashion. The boundaries, though rigid, aren't set in stone, and can be changed through acts of legislature, through the courts, through constitutional amendment, or simply through a gradual change in what the populace feels is acceptable behavior.

The importance of this construct is that, in a sense, it actually is society. It's the set of ground rules that everyone must accept if the society is to continue. In such a society, a "wrong" occurs when someone crosses outside of the legal boundaries. The more severe the wrong, the farther outside of society that person has stepped.

The society as a whole has an interest in punishing those who transgress the boundaries. If they don't punish them, then more and more people will eventually see the boundaries as worthless. If enough people are convinced that they don't have to play by the rules, then the basic structure of society will be so weakened that it can no longer support the society, causing the society to eventually collapse. Therefore, society has a self-interest in punishing those who cross outside of society's boundaries.

In my view, the punishment for crossing society's boundaries has two aspects: can they be rehabilitated and should they ever be allowed to return to society (the punishment/revenge aspect).

First of all, does the magnitude of the crime indicate a level of anti-social behavior that would prevent the criminal from ever again becoming a productive person within society? To me, this is a measurement of how far outside society's boundaries the criminal has stepped. A minor crime is slightly outside societal boundaries. This indicates a mild anti-social personality, but also that the person is close enough to societies boundaries that, through rehabilitation, he could once again operate productively within those boundaries. A terrible crime means that someone has far surpassed society's boundaries. This indicates a strong anti-social personality. A person willing to travel so far out of society would be hard to effectively rehabilitate. The worst criminals have, through their actions, stepped so far outside of the boundaries of society that they can never be returned. They have permanently revoked their right to be part of that society. They can't be rehabilitated.

Secondly, given the nature of his crime, should the person have a chance to attempt to become a productive member of society? Does the person deserve the opportunity to be rehabilitated? I'd argue that this should be measured in how the crime affects the ability other members of society to function. If you commit a crime that prevents another person from ever again being able to properly function, then you lose your right to function in that society. It's the punishment for stepping so far out of society's boundaries, as you have indicated that you are so anti-social that you don't deserve to be in that society.

A small transgression (like petty theft) represents a small step outside of the bounds of society. The crime wasn't that severe. Chances are that the victim won't be scarred for life, and that she'll be able to function as well as before within a reasonably short amount of time. The mild nature of the crime means that the person hasn't stepped that far outside of society's boundaries, and thus that it would be possible to bring them back within society without much effort. Therefore, their crime should merit a small punishment (to show that what they did is intolerable), but should also receive significant opportunities for rehabilitation.

A much more serious crime, like sexual assault, should merit a much more severe punishment. First of all, a person who commits a sexual assault has stepped far beyond the boundaries of what is socially acceptable. There is no way to rationalize their actions to fit within a model for proper behavior. It would take a long time to effectively rehabilitate capable of such anti-social behavior. Furthermore, their assault may have severely impaired the ability of their victim to function. She may very well suffer mental and emotional problems for the rest of her life. The criminal should therefore be punished to an extent that reflects the impairment of the victim. A rapist should get a long jail sentence, one that both would help try to rehabilitate while still punishing him for his grievous social offense.

The final category would be the capital crimes. Some crimes are so far outside of society's boundaries that that person cannot be returned as a functioning person within that society. They indicate a level of anti-social personality that can never be rehabilitated to a point in which they could fit within normal society. Not only that, but their crimes were so heinous that they don't deserve the opportunity to return; they're actions show that they utterly reject the society and its rules. They've killed people. This means that they've not only removed their victims from the society, but, through killing their loved ones, have also permanently impaired the ability of their families to completely return to normal. The criminal, through their combination of severe anti-social personality and with the severe social disturbance caused through their actions, has forfeited their right to ever live in the society again.

Why isn't life in prison a sufficient forfeiture? Because prison is still part of society. Prison is funded by society, staffed by law-abiding (hopefully) members of society, holds criminals that eat food produced in the outside society, etc. Admittedly, prison has a strange position. Though it is still inside of society, it is isolated enough to be considered outside of society in some circumstances; it's atmosphere certainly reinforces that isolation. This isolation from the freedom of outside society, though not actually removing people from that society, serves as an artificial removal.

The more minor the crime, the more proportionally isolated prison is, thus making it a better substitute for actually leaving society. This plays into the idea that committing a crime is stepping out of society. The degree of artificial isolation that a minimum-security prison presents is severe enough removal to punish a minor crime. A major crime, like a vicious sexual assault, is a large step outside of the boundaries, and requires a much higher degree of isolation to effectively punish them for their crimes. That's why vicious rapists need to get decades in a maximum-security prison.

Some crimes represent a step so far outside of society that the artificial removal of a maximum-security prison isn't an adequate enough level of removal from society. These terrible criminals have, by their own actions, permanently removed their right from being part of society. However, being in prison, no matter how vicious the prison, is still society. They're not living in a vacuum. They're still eating food that other people could be eating. They still have the hope that they could escape from prison. They still can interact with other people in the society, both other prisoners and guards. They can read books produced by the society, read news reports of events happening outside of that society. They can still get letters from their families. They still benefit from government funding and shelter. True, their freedoms are extremely curtailed. That curtailment is sufficient enough to substitute for societal removal for lesser criminals. However, it isn't enough for these offenders. The fact that they are still doing the activities described above shows that they are still connected with the society to a degree that isn't sufficient to reflect the way that they, by their own actions, removed themselves from society. The only way that they can be sufficiently removed is through state execution.

These aren't small crimes that I'm describing. Some 1st degree murders wouldn't even fit in this category. I'm describing heinous crimes, crimes with ample proof that the criminal committed the crimes. I'm talking about John Wayne Gacy raping and murdering dozens of teenagers and burying them under his house. I'm describing Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, Ed Gein. These people do not deserve to eat while there is anyone within society that is starving. By their own actions they have removed themselves from society, why should they reap societal benefits while other people still in society do not? To me, the death penalty is the only satisfactory solution. It's the only way to permanently remove them from the society. They don't deserve any societal resources, resources that could be used on others who haven't removed themselves that far outside of society. Their removal was by their own choice, so they must be removed by the only effective means. I think it's immoral to keep expending resources on them that could go to others.

You can say that a state performing executions cause the state to lose its moral advantage; execution puts the state on the level of the killer. I disagree. The morality of the state is different from the morality of a single person. Society gives the state its power to punish people who leave society's boundaries. If the state catches a thief, it has the unquestioned authority to imprison him. If I catch a thief, I do not have that same ability. I'm not invested with that power. Society can give the state the moral authority to permanently remove heinous criminals from society in a way that reflects the criminal's self-removal. I can't execute John Wayne Gacy; I'm not invested with the authority to do so. The fact that society invests the state with the power to punish means that when it properly carries out the punishments demanded by society, its actions are moral. The state isn't killing a killer, it's executing a murderer, and society has the right to give the state the moral authority to do so.

You say that execution is revenge. In a way it is, but all punishment has an aspect of revenge. Putting a rapist is jail is also revenge for what he has done; after all, him being jail will not reverse time and make up for the rape. If there were no revenge element, all that would happen to a criminal is that he would have been told that he had done wrong and that he would be monitored to ensure that he didn't do further wrong, but his actions were water under the bridge and can't be changed by punishing him. In a way, "revenge" plays a role in making people pay for something that can't actually be replaced. The rapist can never unrape his victim, the murderer can never revive his victim. Jailing them doesn't change anything, it's just making them pay for the crime in the only way that we think can be effective; removing their freedom. To me, execution is the only fitting response to some cases where even restriction of freedom isn't a sufficient enough punishment. There is some revenge to this, but it's also the society protecting itself from those who can never again fit within its confines. Its also justice, ensuring that resources don't go to those that absolutely don't deserve them. Innocent people shouldn't starve or go homeless while mass murders are given state food and shelter.

Granted, the death penalty has some terrible possible downsides. Executed people cannot later be exonerated if innocent. That's why I'd reserve it for only the most heinous and obvious cases. However, I don't think that it should be removed as an option for dealing with the Gacys and Bundys of the world. I think that it's immoral for society to keep people like that alive.

[Dis]

I'll support the death penalty when innocent people stop dying.