White Supremacist Executed For Texas Dragging

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/09 ... th.html?hp

White Supremacist Executed for Texas Dragging

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 21, 2011 at 9:37 PM ET


HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) — White supremacist gang member Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed Wednesday evening for the infamous dragging death slaying of James Byrd Jr., a black man from East Texas.

Byrd, 49, was chained to the back of a pickup truck and pulled whip-like to his death along a bumpy asphalt road in one of the most grisly hate crime murders in recent Texas history.

Brewer, 44, was asked if he had any final words, to which he replied: "No. I have no final statement."

He glanced at his parents watching through a nearby window, took several deep breaths and closed his eyes. A single tear hung on the edge of his right eye as he was pronounced dead at 6:21 p.m., 10 minutes after the lethal drugs began flowing into his arms, both covered with intricate black tattoos.

Byrd's sisters also were among the witnesses in an adjacent room.

"Hopefully, today's execution of Brewer can remind all of us that racial hatred and prejudice leads to terrible consequence for the victim, the victim's family, for the perpetrator and for the perpetrator's family," Clara Taylor, one of Byrd's sisters, said.

She called the punishment "a step in the right direction."

"We're making progress," Taylor said. "I know he was guilty so I have no qualms about the death penalty."

Appeals to the courts for Brewer were exhausted and no last-day attempts to save his life were filed.

Besides Brewer, John William King, now 36, also was convicted of capital murder and sent to death row for Byrd's death, which shocked the nation for its brutality. King's conviction and death sentence remain under appeal. A third man, Shawn Berry, 36, received a life prison term.

"One down and one to go," Billy Rowles, the retired Jasper County sheriff who first investigated the horrific scene, said. "That's kind of cruel but that's reality."

It was about 2:30 a.m. on a Sunday, June 7, 1998, when witnesses saw Byrd walking on a road not far from his home in Jasper, a town of more than 7,000 about 125 miles northeast of Houston. Many folks knew he lived off disability checks, couldn't afford his own car and walked where he needed to go. Another witness then saw him riding in the bed of a dark pickup.

Six hours later and some 10 miles away on Huff Creek Road, the bloody mess found after daybreak was thought at first to be animal road kill. Rowles, a former Texas state trooper who had taken office as sheriff the previous year, believed it was a hit-and-run fatality but evidence didn't match up with someone caught beneath a vehicle. Body parts were scattered and the blood trail began with footprints at what appeared to be the scene of a scuffle.

"I didn't go down that road too far before I knew this was going to be a bad deal," he said at Brewer's trial.

Fingerprints taken from the headless torso identified the victim as Byrd.

Testimony showed the three men and Byrd drove out into the county about 10 miles and stopped along an isolated logging road. A fight broke out and the outnumbered Byrd was tied to the truck bumper with a 24½-foot logging chain. Three miles later, what was left of his shredded remains was dumped between a black church and cemetery where the pavement ended on the remote road.

Brewer, King and Berry were in custody by the end of the next day.

The crime put Jasper under a national spotlight and lured the likes of the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers, among others, to try to exploit the notoriety of the case which continues — many say unfairly — to brand Jasper more than a decade later.

King was tried first, in Jasper. Brewer's trial was moved 150 miles away to Bryan. Berry was tried back in Jasper. DNA showed Byrd's blood on all three of them.

Brewer was from Sulphur Springs, about 180 miles to the northwest, and had been convicted of cocaine possession. He met King, a convicted burglar from Jasper, in a Texas prison where they got involved in a KKK splinter group known as the Confederate Knights of America and adorned themselves with racist tattoos. Evidence showed Brewer had violated parole and was involved in a number of burglaries and thefts in the Jasper area.

King had become friends with Berry and moved into Berry's place. Evidence showed Brewer came to Jasper to stay with them.

It is rather fitting this execution was carried out on the same day as Troy Davis.

[Flagg]

Can't say I'm weeping for this fucker, but it's still state sanctioned murder.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This execution was the necessary demonstration of state authority over an attempt to incite communal disorder and terror. It has about as much to do with the Troy Davis murder as Fukushima does with a roadside bombing in Afghanistan.

[TithonusSyndrome]

This execution was the necessary demonstration of state authority over an attempt to incite communal disorder and terror.

Naturally, the problem with this is that the target audience - inbred racist scum and soforth - will likely never draw this conclusion. All they will see is that "political correctness" or "race treason" or some other similarly styled political fashion has corrupted the government so that it does not comprehend the "necessity" of this crime. In the short term, is it necessary? Well, if you accept the notion that execution is a legitimate penal recourse, sure, I guess, but this is a cultural problem as I'm sure nobody needs reminding of and that's where more focus needs to be.

[Broomstick]

This execution was the necessary demonstration of state authority over an attempt to incite communal disorder and terror.

Sorry, I can't get behind the death penalty. Among other things, this brought this scum back into the light for a moment and giver other racist assholes something to get worked up about.

Better to give such human pieces of shit life without parole and let them be forgotten.

[Irbis]

Sorry, I can't get behind the death penalty. Among other things, this brought this scum back into the light for a moment and giver other racist assholes something to get worked up about.

Better to give such human pieces of shit life without parole and let them be forgotten.

Pretty much this. Though, the thing that is most disgusting to me in US death penalty is turning it into some sort of show with audience gleefully watching how someone is killed. What's that, some sort or ancient ages gladiator spectacle? Even if we assume someone did deserve death, a final spit in his/her face by making it public makes it that much more worse to me, personally.

Also, now that I think about it, I did wonder how many inmates led to execution tried to fight it, or lash out in last act of defiance. Or did they all went to it calmly? Is there a data describing the usual behavior of prisoners out there somewhere?

[Broomstick]

The people who actually watch the execution, the witnesses, typically aren't gleeful - they're usually some sort of public official, family of the victim, and sometime family of the condemned. I believe the intention is to witness the execution is done properly, in accordance with the law, and the condemned is actually dead. The one parties likely to be "gleeful" are family of the victim(s), and frequently they aren't, having memories of their dead loved one dredged up and so forth.

The crowds outside the places of execution are usually anti-death penalty protestors, not "gleeful" crowd. Yes, sometimes there's a pro-death counter-demonstration, but most of the crowds you see on TV are against the execution, not for it.

[Irbis]

The people who actually watch the execution, the witnesses, typically aren't gleeful - they're usually some sort of public official, family of the victim, and sometime family of the condemned. I believe the intention is to witness the execution is done properly, in accordance with the law, and the condemned is actually dead. The one parties likely to be "gleeful" are family of the victim(s), and frequently they aren't, having memories of their dead loved one dredged up and so forth.

<shrug> To clarify - by 'public' I didn't meant officials/doctors overseeing the act, as these are a given, plus, they are in a work. I meant people like the ones who willingly come there to watch the execution, plus all the pro-penalty groups who demand the executions be made more public or even transmitted nationally.

I used the word 'gleeful' because IMHO, a normal person wouldn't want to take a part in such show, even to not make the trauma further, and would simply accept that and move along. Though, I obviously have little experience with watching execution proceedings and reasons why one might want to, so that was just my IMHO.

As for the executed person's family being present, I can sort of understand their motives, but I was under impression they wouldn't be allowed to attend, so...

[Broomstick]

Who, exactly, is an official witness varies from place to place. There's not a set rule on this. Relatives of victims aren't always allowed as witnesses.

[Simon_Jester]

But, Irbis, I don't think there are ever large crowds of people watching the execution. There may be large crowds of protestors somewhere in the vicinity of the building, but they're not there to watch the execution, they're there because the execution is an opportunity to express their political views on the death penalty. By and large it's professionals and family members only, as I understand it.

You can apply all sorts of terms (like 'ghoulish') to people who want executions to be made public or transmitted nationally, but they're not at all likely to get their way, I think- they're a minority even among supporters of the death penalty.

By the way- take a hop into the metaphorical Wayback Machine and look at what executions looked like a few hundred years ago: say, the executions held at the Tyburn tree. Now there you have public executions, and they did draw crowds.

[Flagg]

This execution was the necessary demonstration of state authority over an attempt to incite communal disorder and terror.

Sorry, I can't get behind the death penalty. Among other things, this brought this scum back into the light for a moment and giver other racist assholes something to get worked up about.

Better to give such human pieces of shit life without parole and let them be forgotten.

I don't even believe in life without parole except in the most extreme cases as I don't see why we'd need to keep frail people in their 70's in prison. I'm more of a 30 to life person.

[Simon_Jester]

There is a class of arguments on this issue (not just executions, but also on length of prison sentences), which I'm going to call "the punitive argument." Most of them take the form: "We should punish this crime very harshly so that people will be intimidated into not doing it."

Flagg, do you consider the punitive argument to have zero weight, or nonzero weight?

[Flagg]

There is a class of arguments on this issue (not just executions, but also on length of prison sentences), which I'm going to call "the punitive argument." Most of them take the form: "We should punish this crime very harshly so that people will be intimidated into not doing it."

Flagg, do you consider the punitive argument to have zero weight, or nonzero weight?

I think there is some merit to the punitive argument. But 30 years is a long fucking time and even then there's no guarantee of being released, and even if you are you're essentially on parole for the rest of your life so if you fuck up you're back in prison. And I'm not saying there should never be life sentences ever, just for the most severe of crimes and mainly as a public safety measure rather than a punitive one.

[Lord Baal]

Who has the right to decide over the life of others? This is a seriously profound issue... and I have encountered feelings about it.

For once the government directly and indirectly rule over your life, regardless of your liking or not. It is how society is made off and no matter where you run, there will be authority at some extent or the other. But it is righteous for them to wield that power in order to commit sanctioned homicide? However they do this when ordering their soldiers to kill another (potentially innocent) human beings. Of another nationality? Sure, perahps, but does that make them less human that our white supremacist here?

In other issue (one personal view) I think that if a person violate another person human rights (by raping, kidnapping, killing) then that person should be deposed of his human rights, but then there's a flaw in this way of thinking of mine, what if it was on self defense? How to prove 100% that it was on self defense, and what about the police officers and the military? Of course this only apply to killing, since it would be quite curious to see someone alleging raping or kidnapping on self defense.

It is clear that this murderer had done something wrong, but it's enough to brand him to be death. Sure, he actually deserved a worst punishment and this kind of person are the ones that make me to like the myth of christian hell. Does is enough to let the government to kill him? That is when things get dubious... would have been a better punishment to have a live sentence? What about forced labor? Or simply rotting out of boredom until the day of his death?

In Venezuela there hasn't been a death penalty in something like 60 years, and things where pretty regular until the fucktarded of Chavez came to power, with populist measures and explicitly supporting "stealing if it's for food", from then on everything when to hell and back twice and sometimes I would like us to have a death penalty, since prisons are overflowing with scum beyond all repair that actually are very prolific in keeping the illegal activities from the relative security of prison (a lot of kidnapping and homicides are planned and ordered from prison), but then that will be mass homicide, but in the other hand at least 12K follow citizens die every year at the hands of criminals on the streets. Of course a wiser course of action would be to build better bigger prisons and enhance the education system and making things better in general, but that's much easier said than do.

I'm thorn, a part of me tell me that killing them is the best short time solution, the other tells me that's not punishment enough and also that government sanctioned murder is not a logical thing, but then the governments already do that with it's active combat military and sometimes police personnel... The fact that my country is fucked up inside out really doesn't help.

About the fact that death penalties and life sentences being a deterrent, well, for some people they do, but other crimes are for passion and that ones can't be deterred much. In my country the longest sentence you can get is of 30 years for any amount of crimes since they are not cumulative (yeah, I could put a bomb on a building and potentially kill thousands of people or rape 30 girls or scam 100 more and I still get only 30 years), also very rarely some one get that time here. I have seen serial rapers and murderers get only 7 or 15 years. But again, maybe that's our penitentiary and legal system fault and not a flaw on the concept.

[Broomstick]

There is a class of arguments on this issue (not just executions, but also on length of prison sentences), which I'm going to call "the punitive argument." Most of them take the form: "We should punish this crime very harshly so that people will be intimidated into not doing it."

My feeling on "life without parole" is that it's not just to punish severely the worst criminals. It's also to protect society from people who can't be trusted to behave. It's not just that we're punishing the criminals, we're protecting everyone else from people who, if allowed to be out in public, have a very high risk of harming others.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

This execution was the necessary demonstration of state authority over an attempt to incite communal disorder and terror.

Sorry, I can't get behind the death penalty. Among other things, this brought this scum back into the light for a moment and giver other racist assholes something to get worked up about.

Better to give such human pieces of shit life without parole and let them be forgotten.

Given the state of the US prison system, I can't even get behind that. Exactly what good will that do anyone? The man in question will likely never change his views because the very nature of the US prison system leaves precious few opportunities for productive rehabilitation. If and when he would get out, he'd more than likely fail to be a productive member of society, and would likely turn back to crime to support himself. And for everyone else? Well, he represents one of many in the prison system who are a drain on resources with no tangible benefit other than sweeping the unsightly parts of society under the rug for a bit longer... oh, and his incarceration might sate the animal desire for revenge in some people.

As far as US prisons go, incarceration beyond a certain length of time ends a persons life in regards to their productivity in society as effectively as the death sentence. The only real difference is the latter has more immediate effects for the person involved, and is a 100% guarantee of a wasted life, rather than a mere 99.9% guarantee in the case of the former. While I know little to nothing can be done about it now, and I'm effectively pissing into the wind, ideally I would like to see a change of thought across a full cultural spectrum in the US so that we can try and rehabilitate criminals, rather than simply punish them to satisfy our own desires. Because really, we should be above that.

[Simon_Jester]

There is a class of arguments on this issue (not just executions, but also on length of prison sentences), which I'm going to call "the punitive argument." Most of them take the form: "We should punish this crime very harshly so that people will be intimidated into not doing it."

Flagg, do you consider the punitive argument to have zero weight, or nonzero weight?

I think there is some merit to the punitive argument. But 30 years is a long fucking time and even then there's no guarantee of being released, and even if you are you're essentially on parole for the rest of your life so if you fuck up you're back in prison. And I'm not saying there should never be life sentences ever, just for the most severe of crimes and mainly as a public safety measure rather than a punitive one.

All right.

I would say that for certain terrible crimes, the punitive argument makes a good case for life imprisonment if not for execution: "Do this, and you have violated the terms by which our civilization lives so profoundly that it will be the end of your life as you know it. Period. It will no longer be worth our time to figure out whether or not you're sorry, or just faking it; this action is too far beyond the bounds of what you can do without permanent repercussions of the harshest sort. Yes, this means wasting your life with 100% certainty, so don't commit the crime."

Different societies have handled this differently- hanging them, exile, locking people up in an oubliette to die, declaring them 'outlaw.' It depends on context, and one society may even have multiple ways of doing it for different types of offense.

In my case, because I do favor rehabilitation of 'normal' criminals for a lot of reasons, I think we need a separate category for really heinous crimes- a system that runs separate from the mainstream "catch, rehabilitate, go forth and sin no more" system. There's an argument for executions in that if you can get your justice system working reliably enough; if you're not going to execute people there's a damned good argument for life without parole.

[ChaserGrey]

As far as US prisons go, incarceration beyond a certain length of time ends a persons life in regards to their productivity in society as effectively as the death sentence. The only real difference is the latter has more immediate effects for the person involved, and is a 100% guarantee of a wasted life, rather than a mere 99.9% guarantee in the case of the former.

You know what? I'm okay with that.

I favor rehabilitation in 99.9% of cases, but I believe (as Simon said above) that there are some acts so far outside what our civilization can tolerate that it *should* be the end of your life in society. It's not about getting revenge or punishing the person, because I agree that should not be the goal of the justice system. It's about protecting the 99.9% from the 0.1% that do things like drag a man to death because they've been drinking they don't like the color of his skin. Or, as happened to family friends, break into a house, rape the three women and girls inside, and then burn it down with them inside to cover it up. Some acts are heinous enough that the effort of trying to figure out if someone is really sorry isn't worth the risk of them happening again.

That said, I do favor life without parole over the death penalty because it permits at least some remedy if an error crops up later on- and there will always be some possibility of error no matter how well designed and run a system may be.

[Simon_Jester]

Chaser, when I talk about the punitive argument for doing this, I don't mean even what you're getting at- it's not just "we can't be bothered to figure out if you've reformed, the risk is too high." There's not really that much risk of a seventy year old man convicted with rape and murder becoming a recidivist, after all.

No, my argument is that the society which does this is sending a message to the entire population: "If you are proven to have done this, it is The End. No arguments, no bickering, no "but I didn't mean it," no deathbed conversions. This is The End of your life as a member of civil society, because the crime is so terrible that anyone who commits it deserves the greatest punishment we as a civilized people can justly apply.*"

It's not just about keeping the most dangerous criminals away from the public. It's about making sure that the punishment for these crimes is huge, that if you do this you will be gone. You may not die, but in a real sense you lose your life and you don't get it back- everything in your past life, you are forced to leave without being able to return.

There are other ways to do this, such as outlawry (which has fallen out of favor, with reason), exile of the criminal to a penal colony, and of course execution. But if we're not going to do any of those things, I think life without parole works, and serves that necessary function.
__________

*Everyone, please note the phrase "civilized people." If you don't think it is civilized to order executions, then you will have to conclude that execution is too harsh to be something "we as a civilized people can justly apply." Kindly do not take what I just said and say "oh well you're in favor of torturing criminals!" because no, I'm not.

[eyl]

Chaser, when I talk about the punitive argument for doing this, I don't mean even what you're getting at- it's not just "we can't be bothered to figure out if you've reformed, the risk is too high." There's not really that much risk of a seventy year old man convicted with rape and murder becoming a recidivist, after all.

No, my argument is that the society which does this is sending a message to the entire population: "If you are proven to have done this, it is The End. No arguments, no bickering, no "but I didn't mean it," no deathbed conversions. This is The End of your life as a member of civil society, because the crime is so terrible that anyone who commits it deserves the greatest punishment we as a civilized people can justly apply.*"

It's not just about keeping the most dangerous criminals away from the public. It's about making sure that the punishment for these crimes is huge, that if you do this you will be gone. You may not die, but in a real sense you lose your life and you don't get it back- everything in your past life, you are forced to leave without being able to return.

There are other ways to do this, such as outlawry (which has fallen out of favor, with reason), exile of the criminal to a penal colony, and of course execution. But if we're not going to do any of those things, I think life without parole works, and serves that necessary function.
__________

*Everyone, please note the phrase "civilized people." If you don't think it is civilized to order executions, then you will have to conclude that execution is too harsh to be something "we as a civilized people can justly apply." Kindly do not take what I just said and say "oh well you're in favor of torturing criminals!" because no, I'm not.

How effective is this as a deterrent, however? (though I won't disagree that for sufficiently heinous crimes, society may make a "this is intolerable" statement without necessarily expecting it to be a deterrent). I understand that back when theft was punished by public execution, they'd have pickpockets working the crowd watching the execution!

IMO, if the death penalty is to be used, it should be either for the aforementioned heinous crimes (crimes horrible enough that society feels compelled to state that it doesn't want to share air with you) or cases where the alternative punishments prove insufficient to ensure public safety (e.g. someone who commits a murder in a maximum security prison, or while escaping from such).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I simply do not believe that human dignity is compatible with permanent confinement, but at the same time, people who commit crimes for political reasons will just commit them again when they are released, because that's the equivalent of giving them their political platform back (violence). In general, political crimes are also an attack on the whole social body politic of the state, and are therefore especially dangerous. But in general the death penalty should exist for a series of very specific crimes, viz:

-- Rape and murder: To deter rapists from killing their victims.
-- Kidnapping and murder: The same.

Both kinds of crime rarely leave much doubt as to the perpetrator due to the sustained nature of the event, close interaction with a victim and extensive DNA evidence. Both crimes are committed primarily for the first part; and the ultimate sanction, can be applied to deter individuals from premeditatively concluding they should murder their victims to cover up the evidence. Therefore the combination of these crimes in a premeditated fashion with ample physical evidence is something warranting execution.

-- Treason; inciting communal violence through terrorism: These crimes fall under "disturbing the whole order of society" and are frequently done for political reasons; again, the level of doubt is much different from the level of doubt involved in a random shooting. They are not crimes the perpetrators wish to hide but rather that they wish the whole world to know they did. Breivik is an excellent example here.

-- Serial killing and mass murder: Both these crimes again are very public, have an intense concentration of evidenciary resources to be solved or in the later case are blatant in their scope. The individuals who commit them are either seeking the spotlight for their killing or are engaged in an activity leaving decades of sustained forensic evidence and patterns of behaviour which can serve to eliminate doubt.

But of all of these crimes I actually hold this one -- murder while in prison -- to be the most appropriate, because someone who kills in prison is a person we cannot rehabilitate, since the only way we could hold them is in solitary confinement, which I believe to be inhumane and contrary to human dignity; thus, execution is necessary to eliminate their threat to other prisoners. That said, lethal injection is also inhumane, so, I would much prefer the guillotine or firing squad.

All of these falls back, of course, to the fact that all of these men who are being falsely sentenced to die in the US are black men involved in gang/ghetto related essentially random violence with no real evidence they were absolutely the perpetrator, and that is the racist travesty of the current application of the death penalty.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Sorry, I can't get behind the death penalty. Among other things, this brought this scum back into the light for a moment and giver other racist assholes something to get worked up about.

Better to give such human pieces of shit life without parole and let them be forgotten.

I agree, though I think Life without Possibility of Parole at Hard Labor would have been far more just. And while the system probably 'worked' in this instance (got the right scumbag) it still has too much chance for abuse. I don't want the blood of an innocent person on my hands if the State fucks up.

[Simon_Jester]

Sorry, I can't get behind the death penalty. Among other things, this brought this scum back into the light for a moment and giver other racist assholes something to get worked up about.

Better to give such human pieces of shit life without parole and let them be forgotten.

I agree, though I think Life without Possibility of Parole at Hard Labor would have been far more just. And while the system probably 'worked' in this instance (got the right scumbag) it still has too much chance for abuse. I don't want the blood of an innocent person on my hands if the State fucks up.

Fair enough; I imagine Dr. de la Paz would approve. Unless he were pretty darn sure they were guilty himself.

Anyway, as I repeat below, I don't want to get into the debate over which crimes are beyond the pale and how such crimes should be punished. My argument is limited to the claim that the punishment should be life-ruining- the advantage of life imprisonment is that you can, in theory, undo the punishment and make some kind of restitution if you turn out to have made a horrible mistake.

How effective is this as a deterrent, however? (though I won't disagree that for sufficiently heinous crimes, society may make a "this is intolerable" statement without necessarily expecting it to be a deterrent). I understand that back when theft was punished by public execution, they'd have pickpockets working the crowd watching the execution!

Honestly, that was in an era when the punishments for crimes were so horrible that basically any crime could ruin your life if you were caught and hauled before an unsympathetic judge. The prevailing attitude was "as well to hang for a sheep as to hang for a lamb," and you saw a lot of career criminals and especially vicious criminals- like highwaymen who murdered their victims because you'd be executed for a mugging just as for a murder, making it profitable to murder the witnesses.

I take your meaning. Part of the reason for the punitive argument is that it's an attempt to establish the boundaries of society's values: this is acceptable, this is wrong but within what we can call 'human,' this is beyond the pale. You're not necessarily trying to dissuade the next giggling psychopathic axe murderer, so much as you're trying to communicate to everyone that certain behaviors Cross The Line.

I feel like I'm about to sprout a handlebar mustache and a top hat when I say this, but I think that's worth doing for the sake of the salutary effect on the public morals.

The definition of which crimes Cross The Line, and how you punish people who commit them, is a big argument I don't want to dive into, obviously.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Fair enough; I imagine Dr. de la Paz would approve. Unless he were pretty darn sure they were guilty himself.

:snicker:

Now there is something I would love to see..a revolution lead by an AI (peaceful, to be sure).

[Alphawolf55]

There is a class of arguments on this issue (not just executions, but also on length of prison sentences), which I'm going to call "the punitive argument." Most of them take the form: "We should punish this crime very harshly so that people will be intimidated into not doing it."

Flagg, do you consider the punitive argument to have zero weight, or nonzero weight?

I think there is some merit to the punitive argument. But 30 years is a long fucking time and even then there's no guarantee of being released, and even if you are you're essentially on parole for the rest of your life so if you fuck up you're back in prison. And I'm not saying there should never be life sentences ever, just for the most severe of crimes and mainly as a public safety measure rather than a punitive one.

All right.

I would say that for certain terrible crimes, the punitive argument makes a good case for life imprisonment if not for execution: "Do this, and you have violated the terms by which our civilization lives so profoundly that it will be the end of your life as you know it. Period. It will no longer be worth our time to figure out whether or not you're sorry, or just faking it; this action is too far beyond the bounds of what you can do without permanent repercussions of the harshest sort. Yes, this means wasting your life with 100% certainty, so don't commit the crime."

Different societies have handled this differently- hanging them, exile, locking people up in an oubliette to die, declaring them 'outlaw.' It depends on context, and one society may even have multiple ways of doing it for different types of offense.

In my case, because I do favor rehabilitation of 'normal' criminals for a lot of reasons, I think we need a separate category for really heinous crimes- a system that runs separate from the mainstream "catch, rehabilitate, go forth and sin no more" system. There's an argument for executions in that if you can get your justice system working reliably enough; if you're not going to execute people there's a damned good argument for life without parole.

Yeah but does it actually work? Norway for example has I believe a 21 year limit for sentencing with 30 for a crime against humanity and would anyone say they're less safe for it?