5 ms·

"Cox does not believe that the death penalty works as a deterrent, but he says that it is justified as revenge." That is so, so fucked up. An attorney, someone

"Cox does not believe that the death penalty works as a deterrent, but he says that it is justified as revenge." That is so, so fucked up. An attorney, someone whose job it is to impartially argue the law, equally to everyone, saying "Yeah you know, we kill people FOR REVENGE." Not even, you know, hey if we have the death penalty it'll maybe make people think twice about committing a serious crime, but straight up saying "We're gonna get REVENGE on anyone who dares defy the law!" JFC. *Edited to change judge to attorney

CaptainZapp 11y ago
Cox is an assistant DA not a judge. Which, in my book, does not excuse his attitude at all.
- crisnoble 11y ago
  Currently the DA, when the elected DA died he filled the vacancy and will be running for election in October.
Jtsummers 11y ago
DA, not judge. But yes, it's fucked up.
DanielStraight 11y ago
I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree, but this is worth reading: http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2012/07/a-few-short-steps-to-the-gallows.html http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2012/07/a-few-short-step... Note: I know absolutely nothing about the author of this piece. The writing stands on its own and is a series of interesting thought experiments attempting to justify revenge. Obviously this is not directly relevant to the posted article, but just on a philosophical level.
yitchelle 11y ago
Agreed. I don't get how the bar of Louisiana allows Cox to practice law with such an attitude.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
The analogy to revenge doesn't even make much sense unless you assume that capital crimes are against the state as opposed to persons.
tarpherder 11y ago
Whats better about using the "deterrent" excuse compared to the "revenge" truth? Why would it even deter a potential death-row criminal? How many future death-row criminals would have not committed atrocities because of that particular death? Whats the big deterrent about dying compared to the alternative: a life in horrible prison system where you may just die a more unpleasant death anyway?
Tomte 11y ago
Revenge is a generally recognized goal of criminal punishment. One of several, and in civilized countries it is considered probably the least important, but it is still lurking out there. And not in some disturbed mind's weblog. In serious legal literature.
kazinator 11y ago
Punishments for crimes are not merely deterrents; that is a secondary role. Punishments are ... punitive, of course! Suppose you break into someone's house and steal 50 bucks. You aren't just forced to return 50 bucks; you go to jail for a while. Even in civil suits, there are "punitive damages": remedies awarded to a plaintiff beyond actual damages. If you kill someone, then killing you is not even punitive really; it's like taking 50 bucks from someone who stole 50 bucks. The revenge is less than punitive. It's not true revenge. True revenge has a punitive aspect: it goes beyond the original offense. Killing is only revenge if the method is more fearsome and painful. If a killer tortures someone to death, but is given a quick and merciful death, that falls short of revenge. Anyway, deterrent value must never be the focus; that is a pseudo-intellectual liberal angle which detracts from the morality of the situation, which is about justice. If a punishment's ability to deter is considered important, that leads to injustice. For instance, big punishments are handed down for small crimes to "make an example" which discourages others. E.g. six month prison terms aren't deterring petty pickpockets in some area, so we crank it up to five years.
- carlob 11y ago
  IIRC in Turkey, they reintroduced death penalty for kidnapping and the number of people rescued from kidnapping declined dramatically: it is much simpler to do away with witnesses. You can say you don't believe in deterrents, but you surely cannot believe that it's good to have punishments that encourage to commit more crimes. For what is worth I agree with you that deterring from committing crime is not the primary purpose of legal punishment, but I think that the primary purpose should be reeducation and reintroduction in society. You'll probably call that a crypto-socialist intellectual angle, but I don't think a just society can exist with both death and life penalty.
  - selimthegrim 11y ago
    This; this is also why the death penalty for rape (child or not) or molestation is a bad idea. You're just increasing the incentive for them to kill once they're done.
  - kazinator 11y ago
tzs 11y ago
I don't think the edit worked. If I read your comment, with my best guess as to what it said before the edit applied, it makes sense. As it stands now, with the edit applied, it reads as if you don't think attorneys are supposed to express opinions on the philosophical issues or societal goals behind the laws, which is a bizarre notion. And since HN does not report edit times on comments, I cannot tell which responses were pre-edit and which post-edit. (Not that reporting edit times would help much, since HN stops reporting minutes on comment times once they are an hour old...). Several responses I agree with if they were posted before the edit, and strongly disagree with if they were posted after. And several more I agree with if they were posted after, and strongly disagree with if they were posted before!

CaptainZapp 11y ago

Cox is an assistant DA not a judge. Which, in my book, does not excuse his attitude at all.

crisnoble 11y ago
Currently the DA, when the elected DA died he filled the vacancy and will be running for election in October.

Jtsummers 11y ago

DA, not judge. But yes, it's fucked up.

DanielStraight 11y ago

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree, but this is worth reading: http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2012/07/a-few-short-steps-to-the-gallows.html http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2012/07/a-few-short-step... Note: I know absolutely nothing about the author of this piece. The writing stands on its own and is a series of interesting thought experiments attempting to justify revenge. Obviously this is not directly relevant to the posted article, but just on a philosophical level.

yitchelle 11y ago

Agreed. I don't get how the bar of Louisiana allows Cox to practice law with such an attitude.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

The analogy to revenge doesn't even make much sense unless you assume that capital crimes are against the state as opposed to persons.

tarpherder 11y ago

Whats better about using the "deterrent" excuse compared to the "revenge" truth? Why would it even deter a potential death-row criminal? How many future death-row criminals would have not committed atrocities because of that particular death? Whats the big deterrent about dying compared to the alternative: a life in horrible prison system where you may just die a more unpleasant death anyway?

Tomte 11y ago

Revenge is a generally recognized goal of criminal punishment. One of several, and in civilized countries it is considered probably the least important, but it is still lurking out there. And not in some disturbed mind's weblog. In serious legal literature.

kazinator 11y ago

Punishments for crimes are not merely deterrents; that is a secondary role. Punishments are ... punitive, of course! Suppose you break into someone's house and steal 50 bucks. You aren't just forced to return 50 bucks; you go to jail for a while. Even in civil suits, there are "punitive damages": remedies awarded to a plaintiff beyond actual damages. If you kill someone, then killing you is not even punitive really; it's like taking 50 bucks from someone who stole 50 bucks. The revenge is less than punitive. It's not true revenge. True revenge has a punitive aspect: it goes beyond the original offense. Killing is only revenge if the method is more fearsome and painful. If a killer tortures someone to death, but is given a quick and merciful death, that falls short of revenge. Anyway, deterrent value must never be the focus; that is a pseudo-intellectual liberal angle which detracts from the morality of the situation, which is about justice. If a punishment's ability to deter is considered important, that leads to injustice. For instance, big punishments are handed down for small crimes to "make an example" which discourages others. E.g. six month prison terms aren't deterring petty pickpockets in some area, so we crank it up to five years.

carlob 11y ago
IIRC in Turkey, they reintroduced death penalty for kidnapping and the number of people rescued from kidnapping declined dramatically: it is much simpler to do away with witnesses. You can say you don't believe in deterrents, but you surely cannot believe that it's good to have punishments that encourage to commit more crimes. For what is worth I agree with you that deterring from committing crime is not the primary purpose of legal punishment, but I think that the primary purpose should be reeducation and reintroduction in society. You'll probably call that a crypto-socialist intellectual angle, but I don't think a just society can exist with both death and life penalty.
- selimthegrim 11y ago
  This; this is also why the death penalty for rape (child or not) or molestation is a bad idea. You're just increasing the incentive for them to kill once they're done.
- kazinator 11y ago

tzs 11y ago

I don't think the edit worked. If I read your comment, with my best guess as to what it said before the edit applied, it makes sense. As it stands now, with the edit applied, it reads as if you don't think attorneys are supposed to express opinions on the philosophical issues or societal goals behind the laws, which is a bizarre notion. And since HN does not report edit times on comments, I cannot tell which responses were pre-edit and which post-edit. (Not that reporting edit times would help much, since HN stops reporting minutes on comment times once they are an hour old...). Several responses I agree with if they were posted before the edit, and strongly disagree with if they were posted after. And several more I agree with if they were posted after, and strongly disagree with if they were posted before!