From a letter in The Fresno Bee this morning:
If [a] predator is convicted on circumstantial evidence, they should get a life sentence with no chance of parole and only one appeal. If convicted with evidence that only points to him, the authorities should take that person straight to the death chamber.
Really? How is that going to work? What kind of standard is “evidence that only points to him”? Since prosecutors would never present evidence that someone other than the accused committed the crime, I suppose this would shift the burden to the defense to present evidence that someone else committed the crime. In other words, if you are a “predator”—which the letter-writer does not define, but which appears to mean anybody previously convicted of a violent crime with a sexual aspect—then you should be considered guilty until proven innocent. (Or at least until the defense presents evidence that credibly suggests someone else might have done it, so that there is evidence “pointing to” someone other than the accused. No, that wouldn’t just create another “technicality” for these bloodthirsty enemies of law to complain about later!)
And how exactly is curtailing the constitutional rights of these “predators” so we can kill them with the machinery of the state going to make society any safer? Justice is not and never will be prevention. Deterrence will never be complete. How many people do we have to kill before society is safe? (Hint: Everyone.) This letter-writer does not present a principled approach to justice; she bares her sharpened teeth in bald ignorance and unthinking vengeance.
But that is not justice. Not in the United States of America. If you want to see true “predators,” look to the people with views like that letter-writer—people who place no value on due process or the rule of law, people whose only solution to crime is simply a quick death delivered by state-sanctioned executioners with no commitment to rational standards of distributing punishment. Kill them, kill them all, and do it now!
Most unfortunately, the letter-writer is not alone in her despicable views. Here is one of the rabid, poorly-reasoned, and misspelled responses in the online comments:
Until those in society are ready to abandon the absurd notion they have as to what constitutes “civilized” behavior towards criminal punishments, this Nation will never deal effectively with criminals. When a person is found guilty (beyond doubt) he should be executed immediately following the trial, within the same day. Then cremated and his ashes flused down the toliet.
The rage hampers its coherence, but the message, spittle-flecked though it is, comes through clearly: let’s forget all that stuff about the accused being innocent until proven guilty, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments, and due process. Forget all that! Why bother? Kill them all! Today, if you can!
The ignorance and stupidity shows through, too, in the midst of that vicious and bloodthirsty repudiation of the rule of law, when the responder suggests that immediate execution following trial should occur only when there is proof of guilt “beyond doubt.” Really? “Beyond doubt”? You mean we should have a higher standard of proof than “beyond a reasonable doubt”? Surely the responder doesn’t mean we should only executed these hated “predators” when they are convicted by proof beyond any doubt. And even though the letter-writer does not explicitly repudiate the idea of “innocent until proven guilty,” doing so is the only way to carry out her hideous proposal. Neither of these would-be destroyers of justice and law has bothered to think about the viability or consequences of their views.
People like this letter-writer and her responder are more dangerous to society than the “predators” they want to kill. Violent criminals can destroy individuals, but views like the ones expressed in that letter and that response, if given credence, stand to destroy society itself. (And—supreme irony!—I have no doubt that both of these Vicious Predators and Would-Be Destroyers of Justice and Law would call themselves “conservative.” What are they conserving?)
What have we done that our society can breed these kinds of anti-ideas? Did our education system fail? Should religion be blamed? Are the principled defenders of law and civility just not speaking up? Has the marketplace of ideas failed? Where are these people coming from?