Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, September 2, 2010
Crime Should We Be Pursuing the Death Penalty for Monfort?
Posted by Dominic Holden on Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM
Earlier this morning, King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg announced he would seek the death penalty for Christopher Monfort, accused of killing a Seattle police officer last fall. This has raised a debate over whether that's the right choice. On one hand, there's the broader question of whether you support capital punishment; on the other hand, there are the specifics of this case—the killing of a police officer, whether the paralyzed suspect would suffer more if he got life in prison, whether the county can afford a multi-million-dollar death-penalty case at the expense of other county needs, etc.
Others says that all killing is unacceptable and must be punished. But if killing anyone is barbaric and unacceptable, then isn't capital punishment also unacceptable? Or is it only acceptable during times of prosperous revenues for the county, when the county can more readily afford a multi-million-dollar death-penalty case? What do you think (and why do you think it)?
Do you think Dan Satterberg should pursue the death penalty for Christopher Monfort?
To be clear, Monfort hasn't been convicted and this poll isn't on whether he should be sentenced to death (that's up to a jury of his peers). The question is whether the county should be asking for the death penalty.
1
Dominic,
I voted no in this particular case (largely because it is a high profile one) but remain pro-Capitol Punishment. However, should a jury determine a guilty verdict, I won't have a problem with his execution. The problem is it will be a protracted and expensive appeals process.
I voted no in this particular case (largely because it is a high profile one) but remain pro-Capitol Punishment. However, should a jury determine a guilty verdict, I won't have a problem with his execution. The problem is it will be a protracted and expensive appeals process.
2
It's weird that this debate is still taking place in the US, of all places. Of course the death penalty is immoral. And the ironic thing is that the people who support it the most are the same people who demand less government control in every other area.
3
It's not like he raped two lesbians in South Park and then butchered one. I mean, do cops even read The Stranger?
5
I tried to check three responses - No, it's a waste of money - No, life in prison is a worse sentence, and No, it's immoral.
The Death Penalty is a massive waste of tax dollars. Kind of like the War on Pot.
The Death Penalty is a massive waste of tax dollars. Kind of like the War on Pot.
6
I think these three events are salient and connected:
1) Our city has chosen not to prosecute the officer involved in the "Mexican Piss" assault as a hate crime.
2) A police officer shot and killed an "armed", likely drunk, hard-of-hearing homeless man who was walking away from him.
3) A man who killed a cop is being sentenced to death.
If we're deciding that we support an eye-for-an-eye style punishments (which this death penalty most certainly is), then we need to hold our police accountable to the same consequences.
Lacking that, let's put this guy in jail for life and call it a day. And hold police accountable, not have an office of accountability who does the opposite.
1) Our city has chosen not to prosecute the officer involved in the "Mexican Piss" assault as a hate crime.
2) A police officer shot and killed an "armed", likely drunk, hard-of-hearing homeless man who was walking away from him.
3) A man who killed a cop is being sentenced to death.
If we're deciding that we support an eye-for-an-eye style punishments (which this death penalty most certainly is), then we need to hold our police accountable to the same consequences.
Lacking that, let's put this guy in jail for life and call it a day. And hold police accountable, not have an office of accountability who does the opposite.
7
Since you asked... I think that nobody, either individual or state, should have the right to kill in cold blood. killing in self defense either for an individual or the state (war) may be justifiable. But besides the numerous practical, economic and logistical problems with the death penalty and the fact that it's debatable if it's an effective deterrent, it's also simply (IMHO) immoral.
11
I used to be very pro death penalty (during my misguided "Libertarian Phase"), but honestly after seeing that no matter how horrible the crime, there is really no reason to institue the death penalty.....doesn't deter crime and costs WAY TOO MUCH, prisoners should have to suffer for years, etc...
Of course, pro death penalty people are like "well, we should just put a bullet in their head and give them fewer appeals". I do agree that if we are going to keep the death penalty, there should be fewer appeals (and I know, I am bad liberal for saying so) even though innocent people will be convicted. Innocent people are convicted in any legal system, its sad but it happens.
And why do we spend so much money making sure they die nicely? If we are going to keep the death penalty (again, I don't think we should) then we need to just do the one bullet to the head thing (and again, I am a bad bad liberal for saying so)
Of course, pro death penalty people are like "well, we should just put a bullet in their head and give them fewer appeals". I do agree that if we are going to keep the death penalty, there should be fewer appeals (and I know, I am bad liberal for saying so) even though innocent people will be convicted. Innocent people are convicted in any legal system, its sad but it happens.
And why do we spend so much money making sure they die nicely? If we are going to keep the death penalty (again, I don't think we should) then we need to just do the one bullet to the head thing (and again, I am a bad bad liberal for saying so)
12
It's funny how people without criminal records rarely if ever get shot or punched by cops. Don't break the law and cooperate with cops and guess what? You'll live a long and fruitful life.
13
Ha!
The results of this poll (so far) accurately reflect the age, urban and political demographics of Slog's core readership.
Surprise!! Not.
The results of this poll (so far) accurately reflect the age, urban and political demographics of Slog's core readership.
Surprise!! Not.
14
@2: It's not obvious to me that the death penalty is immoral, and I'm a liberal (although I'm definitely not an orthodox leftist).
The father who shoots the man who raped and killed his daughter is not, in my view, morally equivalent to the man he gunned down. Nor is the state by proxy.
The relevant questions for me are, does the death penalty lower the murder rate? Does it otherwise increase/decrease human suffering? Is it more or less humane than locking a man up in a bleak and brutal cage for the rest of his life? Does it increase/decrease our sense that justice is done? Is the system accurate enough to ensure we do not execute wrongly convicted people?
The answers to these questions leave me with very mixed feelings about it.
The father who shoots the man who raped and killed his daughter is not, in my view, morally equivalent to the man he gunned down. Nor is the state by proxy.
The relevant questions for me are, does the death penalty lower the murder rate? Does it otherwise increase/decrease human suffering? Is it more or less humane than locking a man up in a bleak and brutal cage for the rest of his life? Does it increase/decrease our sense that justice is done? Is the system accurate enough to ensure we do not execute wrongly convicted people?
The answers to these questions leave me with very mixed feelings about it.
15
@6: Yes.
Also, if civilians aren't getting the death penalty for killing civilians (and, admittedly, I am ill-researched here--anyone?), then killing a cop shouldn't be extra criteria for the death penalty. What Monfort did was inexcusable and murder is never OK and I like that cops exist when they're not being dicks, and even when they are being dicks I don't support cop-killing/injuring (hence, why I ended up voting "immoral policy," although I agree with Will that I wish I could have checked all of the last three), but someone shooting an armed person in a position of state-given power over them shouldn't be a larger, more drastically-punishable crime than someone just shooting someone. That's when shit just gets scary.
Also, if civilians aren't getting the death penalty for killing civilians (and, admittedly, I am ill-researched here--anyone?), then killing a cop shouldn't be extra criteria for the death penalty. What Monfort did was inexcusable and murder is never OK and I like that cops exist when they're not being dicks, and even when they are being dicks I don't support cop-killing/injuring (hence, why I ended up voting "immoral policy," although I agree with Will that I wish I could have checked all of the last three), but someone shooting an armed person in a position of state-given power over them shouldn't be a larger, more drastically-punishable crime than someone just shooting someone. That's when shit just gets scary.
16
No, for all three of the reasons given.
@6: I think that as "guardians of the law", police should be held to a higher standard for their actions, given their supposed superior ability to understand and enforce the law.
@6: I think that as "guardians of the law", police should be held to a higher standard for their actions, given their supposed superior ability to understand and enforce the law.
17
According to evidence, the death penalty simply doesn't dissuade future crime, which means that it's not preventative. It's certainly not restorative -- it doesn't bring the murderer back to life. Which means we only do it cause it feels satisfying (retribution!). This is a terrible reason to kill someone, even a really crummy person. Plus it takes resources away from other projects (law enforcement, education, general state funding that could be otherwise used) that *could* prevent future crime.
Killing a cop should absolutely be aggravated murder, and anyone who does so should be sentenced severely, but the death penalty just doesn't make any sense.
Killing a cop should absolutely be aggravated murder, and anyone who does so should be sentenced severely, but the death penalty just doesn't make any sense.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (17) RSS