"On March 6, 1978, as I stood on the steps of the Georgia courthouse where I was fighting obscenity charges, a series of gunshots rang out. I remember nothing that happened after that until I woke up in the intensive care unit. The damage to my central nervous system was severe, and it took several weeks before doctors could stabilize me. From then on, I was paralyzed from the waist down, and have been confined to a wheelchair ever since."
In all the years since the shooting, I have never come face-to-face with Franklin. I would love an hour in a room with him and a pair of wire-cutters and pliers, so I could inflict the same damage on him that he inflicted on me. But, I do not want to kill him, nor do I want to see him die."
As far as the severity of punishment is concerned, to me, a life spent in a 3-by-6-foot cell is far harsher than the quick release of a lethal injection."
Franklin has been sentenced by the Missouri Supreme Court to death by legal injection on Nov. 20. I have every reason to be overjoyed with this decision, but I am not. I have had many years in this wheelchair to think about this very topic. As I see it, the sole motivating factor behind the death penalty is vengeance, not justice, and I firmly believe that a government that forbids killing among its citizens should not be in the business of killing people itself."
Hollywood Reporter
58 comments:
The death penalty for murder is neither retribution nor deterence.
It has to do with the place that society accords the voice of the victim, a voice that is missing.
It works at that.
The big plus is the recidivism rate is zero.
Not all victims would choose to have their executioner executed.
For the state to make the default capital punishment in the interset of according the missing voice of the victim compounds the wrong done to the victim.
First the victim is killed. Then the state executes his killer in spite of the victim's wishes, saying they are doing that FOR the victim, when that's exactly what s/he wouldn't want.
That's not a very good theory for capital punishment IMO.
I Am Totally For Capital Punishment When I Decide Who Lives and Who Dies.
I've read about this story twice and each time I have to remind myself that the guy isn't being executed for shooting Flynt. So what is it about the story that makes me think that?
The purpose of the civil law is the enforcement of private rights.
The purpose of the criminal law is the enforcement of public rights.
The watertight door between them leaks a bit. Moral hazard.
People would appreciate the distinction more were they not constantly flattered by those who sell popular entertainment.
Again, moral hazard.
Larry Flynt is hardly a sympathetic character; he'd roll right over decency in the pursuit of wealth, getting people to see him as a champion of free speech.
All I've learned from this story is that violent fantasies have replaced sexual fantasies for him.
You have a right to forgive those who wronged *you*. You have no right to forgive sins against a third party, which is what Franklin is being executed for having committed. He's a murderous racist who is being killed for killing an interracial couple. Flynt's shooting may very well be the least of Franklin's transgressions.
Because the state can't know the wishes of a dead victim, it will necessarily sometimes err in acting according to his wishes NO MATTER WHAT decision it makes, Phx. So that's not a very good theory for opposing capital punishment, either.
If you're simply saying the victim's wishes (voice) should have nothing to do with a state system for meting out punishment, then I agree. Sentences should not be predicated upon the whims of victims. For punishment to act as deterrent, the outcomes must be predictable.
Flynt, however, has no problem with him being tortured.
Be interesting to see how the Lefties handle this one.
I Keep an Electric Chair in the Spare Room in Case of Emergencies.
I Define What an Emergency Is.
Of Course, it is Just Plugged into a Wall Outlet, So it is Kind of Like a Crock Pot Electric Chair.
You Can Put a Pot of Stew on their Lap: Heats Up Nicely.
Lesson I Learned: You Can't Run the Air Conditioner While Also Operating the Spare Room Electric Chair.
So: Executions are Best on Days of Mild Weather.
The Electric Chair Used to be in the Guest Room But the Eerie Glowing and Pitiful Moans Disturbed the Guests.
I Would Tell Them: if You Don't Want to Be in the Same Room as Someone In an Electric Chair There Is Always a Hotel.
This is All Hypothetical, Of Course: No Need for the Authorities to Visit. Unless They Just Want to Watch.
The Pirate DVDs of My Justice Are Big in China.
I Suppose I Could Perform Lethal Injections, But I Don't Like Needles.
My Electric Chair Was Converted from a Lazy Boy Recliner, So They Can Put Their Feet Up.
I Suppose One Could Make an Electric Chair from a Futon, But 'Electric Futon' Just Sounds Like the Name of a Japanese Pop Group.
Now, the "Electric Love Seat": That Has Possibilities.
It's Betamax3001's thread. We just interrupt the stream of Turing testing.
I think Larry's just saying if I had my druthers I wouldn't want him executed. I don't think he's trying to speak for anyone else.
I wouldn't judge him because he says he'd also like to do to his attacker what his attacker did to him. I don't know anything about him other than he published a dirty magazine, but I sure don't blame him for wanting his attacker to suffer as well.
I wouldn't judge him because he says he'd also like to do to his attacker what his attacker did to him.
This raises some obvious equivalency problems, phx. Factor out motive: was Flynt in fact tortured? Is shooting someone and paralyzing them the same as going medieval on them? What about all the wartime combat shootings in Iraq which may have maimed. Are they the same as Abu Ghraib?
I also gotta love phx's first name familiarity with "Larry."
You can't make this shit up.
betamax: Isn't Flynt slowly dying in an electric chair?
I don't think he's trying to speak for anyone else.
He wasn't; you were. Calypso properly directed his comment to you.
I wouldn't judge him because he says he'd also like to do to his attacker what his attacker did to him.
No problem, he's not being judged. And his desire for retribution in kind is being ignored just as his desire to keep the killer locked up rather than executed. No one's really listening to Flynt.
I think I watched some movie about Larry Flynt. It had Woody Boyd in it and Kurt Cobain's girlfriend or something like that.
They drank moonshine whiskey together and that's about all I remember.
Kind of funny when you stop to consider that I was likely blackout drunk, myself.
Someone who's been paralyzed in an assassination attempt has a pass from me to go overboard in any fantasy they have of what they'd like to do to their attacker.
Why would anyone get all judgey judgey over that?
This raises some obvious equivalency problems, phx. Factor out motive: was Flynt in fact tortured? Is shooting someone and paralyzing them the same as going medieval on them? What about all the wartime combat shootings in Iraq which may have maimed. Are they the same as Abu Ghraib?
You have to be joking.
Vengeance is a part of justice and vice versa you fool.
phx said I wouldn't judge him because he says he'd also like to do to his attacker what his attacker did to him.
Is there or is there not an element of symmetry or equivalence in your own words? You can always amend your words, but not change the plain meaning of them. Unless you say so.
AMENDED: I wouldn't judge him because/if he says he'd like to torture/burn/kill/piss on the guy who paralyzed him.
Let the man have his wishes.
Thanks, phx. We're cool now.
I have to agree with Methadras. It is about retribution and it is Right and Just that it is about retribution. Vengeance is important.
What we don't want, though, is for people to be taking on that vengeance themselves. Someone in the state of mind to want vengeance, very understandable and justified desire for vengeance, is not particularly rational.
It's better, by far, that a rational and objective system take on the task of vengeance. Much less likely to lead to the torture-murders of the wrong person that way.
After all, God didn't say that vengeance was *wrong*. God said "vengeance is mine." We could discuss if this means it doesn't belong to *any* earthly authority, but I think it clearly doesn't belong to an individual.
The problem with the State forfeiting retribution and vengeance, is that *logically* it then reverts TO the individual again. That is not a good end result for society.
Trying to pretty it all up with talk about the voice of victims or deterrence (and I do think that both are important, too) is that certain crimes are so horrible that a society has to fill the need for outrage in a controlled way so that it is not fulfilled in an uncontrolled way.
We execute people, because the fuckers just don't deserve to be alive. Why on earth should we be expected to keep them locked up forever (until they die), as being a better source of punishment?
Speed up the process is what I say. You'll see how humane we are, phx, when the Obamacare death panels are instituated. Something tells me that you'll have no problem with who lives or dies when the new rules are inacted.
AllenS said...
You'll see how humane we are, phx, when the Obamacare death panels are instituated.
You don't understand that we live everyday with limitations (rationing) on health care. We have the technology to sequence the genomic DNA in the tumor of anyone who gets cancer. We don't do it in general because it provides information of limited value in the clinical context most of the time. But, every now and then it might be informative yet we still don't do it because it is too expensive. Decisions about the balance between cost and benefit are made all the time in medicine just as they are in any other aspect of life.
The HMO's, which were much beloved by the right, ration health care as do private health insurance companies, in ways both big and small. Rationing, in the sense of rational allocation of finite resources, is part of life. Bagoh20 doesn't buy the biggest CNC mill he can find for his business he buys the one that gives the best return in terms of production relative to his capital investment.
The rationing canard, which is brought up all the time, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of how the world works. It is not a rational criticism of either Obamacare of the health system in general.
ARM: HCR will bring an end to heroic end-of-life measures. Grandma will have to die with dignity rather than receive expensive, life-extending care which adds a few months or years to an otherwise full life. You can't spin it any other way. The Europeans are already used to this. For all your well intentioned do-gooding, you just can't seem to fathom that you're telling people--or you're going to be telling people--to enjoy life life while it lasts because we can't afford to try to keep everyone alive just because we can.
Everyone should enjoy life while it lasts.
El Pollo,
Your response is a perfect example of the problem with discussing this issue. You simply refuse to acknowledge that rationing of health care goes on everyday and has since time immemorial.
To give a simple example. I have very good insurance. My MD went to prescribe me a drug the other day, thought better about it and asked me about my insurance. He then prescribed me a better drug with fewer side effects. The drug is not covered on many plans and people with those plans get the less expensive and somewhat more problematic drug. Welcome to the real world.
ARM: American style end-of-life care is heroic, life extending measures for the elderly or the terminally ill. Too often, the grieving next-of-kin will opt for anything to extend life. Doctors oblige. This must end under a European-style system because this simply doesn't happen under their system which is why they can afford it.
You are acting like this is a good thing. I strongly suggest that you read up on what doctors do regarding their own health care.
"You don't understand that we live everyday with limitations (rationing) on health care. We have the technology to sequence the genomic DNA in the tumor of anyone who gets cancer."
No, I think that we do understand that.
What we refused to swallow whole was the claim that this would no longer happen if only the benevolent government got involved.
If we had rationing before (which we did) and we'll have rationing in the future (which we must)... what do we gain other than a humongous government agency that has to proactively identify every citizen to determine if they are following the law by being in possession of medical insurance? I mean... you only get a speeding ticket and fine only when you're caught speeding, no one has to prove that they don't speed so that they aren't simply issued regular speeding fines as a matter of course.
I thought of this today when a 20-something friend at school explained that she didn't have health insurance before because she couldn't afford it and that she and her husband weren't going to be able to afford it any better now, but that they'd get fined monthly until they figured out how to buy some.
I thought... but how is the government going to *know*?
Rationing then... rationing now... but how much freedom did we gleefully throw away in the process?
AReasonableMan said...
You are acting like this is a good thing. I strongly suggest that you read up on what doctors do regarding their own health care.
I'm trying to say it's your thing...and it will soon be my thing too...because you made it so...
Ell Pollo clearly doesn't agree with you Synova. Your view is notably closer to reality.
Treatment protocols for different medical conditions are strongly constrained by consensus within the various sub-disciplines of the medical profession. These protocols change over time in response to research, cost and evolving ethical standards. Doctors will always have the major voice in this consensus but as in the example I gave above the cost to the patient will always be an issue and that is determined in large part by insurance policies.
El Pollo, people in Europe are just as afraid of dying and their relatives are just as afraid of losing their loved ones as people here. If anything cross-generational family ties are closer in Europe because it is much more common for people to stay in their home towns.
I don't think you really understand what happens in Europe. My wife's grandmother, who lived in Europe, had intensive medicare care over the last 10 years of her life. As far as I could tell no effort was spared to save her live and she was really old. There was no obvious difference to treatment here.
The big plus is the recidivism rate is zero.
Less than zero, actually. It not only prevents the guilty from murdering again -- it prevents the occasional wrongly-convicted man from committing any future murders he might have one day committed. :)
Revenant said...
Less than zero -- it prevents the occasional wrongly-convicted man from committing any future murders he might have one day committed. :)
Thread winner.
Post a Comment