Should Killer Danielo Cavalcante have died during arrest?

[jbg]

Do we have so little faith in ourselves that we value the life of illegal alien killer Danielo Cavacante over our own safety of even the public fiscal well-being?

Illegal Alien Killer Danelo Cavalcante is a Hero Back in Latin America

Pennsylvania Fugitive Quickly Became a ‘Cult Hero’ in Latin America: Report

He killed and was convicted in Brazil and Pennsylvania, escaped twice or three times. Could not he have just died in a "struggle"? Rinse, wash repeat.

On a separate note, 122 years to the day, President McKinley's killer was awaiting trial and execution (link). At that time in our history, we believed in ourselves. There was no question about Czolgosz's guilt. There were no endless appeals. There was no wallowing in societal guilt. How people in modern times could find redeeming value in Mssrs. Czolgosz or Sirhan, I leave to others. Wrong is wrong, pure and simple.

Should we have arrested Hitler, tried him and given him another chance?

 

[Stevicus]

Do we have so little faith in ourselves that we value the life of illegal alien killer Danielo Cavacante over our own safety of even the public fiscal well-being?

Illegal Alien Killer Danelo Cavalcante is a Hero Back in Latin America

Pennsylvania Fugitive Quickly Became a ‘Cult Hero’ in Latin America: Report

He killed and was convicted in Brazil and Pennsylvania, escaped twice or three times. Could not he have just died in a "struggle"? Rinse, wash repeat.

Why would anyone consider him to be a hero?

On a separate note, 122 years to the day, President McKinley's killer was awaiting trial and execution (link). At that time in our history, we believed in ourselves. There was no question about Czolgosz's guilt. There were no endless appeals. There was no wallowing in societal guilt. How people in modern times could find redeeming value in Mssrs. Czolgosz or Sirhan, I leave to others. Wrong is wrong, pure and simple.

I tend to agree, although if we want to abide by the principle that "wrong is wrong" no matter what, then society would do far better if we were more consistent in the application of that principle. The only real question is not "what is wrong," but who gets to judge. Czolgosz was sentenced to death by a judge, just as Czolgosz sentenced McKinley to death for what he saw was wrong.

Should we have arrested Hitler, tried him and given him another chance?

I think if Hitler had been captured alive and put on trial, he probably would have been hanged along with the other Nuremberg defendants. He would not have been given another chance. They already made that mistake once with Napoleon, so they weren't going to do that with Hitler.

 

[anna.]

Do we have so little faith in ourselves that we value the life of illegal alien killer Danielo Cavacante over our own safety of even the public fiscal well-being?

Do you have so little faith in our Constitution that you don't mind waiving it for certain people? And even though it happens, where do cops acquire the legal right to act outside the law, without due process, even when dealing with foreign nationals?

 

[jbg]

Do you have so little faith in our Constitution that you don't mind waiving it for certain people? And even though it happens, where do cops acquire the legal right to act outside the law, without due process, even when dealing with foreign nationals?

So I guess that Calvacante's life is of equal value to the money earned by the sweat of the brow of people that work? Of equal value to the lives put in danger by the escape?

I would agree with you except the ones that insist on "trials" for already guilty people create so many procedural roadblocks that trials are drawn out, impractical and purposeless at best, and circuses like the Manson trial in California at worst. As a lawyer, I totally favor trials, but they should not take years. For example,

1. On October 31, 2017 Sayfullo Saipov mowed down eight people on a bicycle path in New York City. He was convicted in Manhattan Federal Court in May 2023, more than five and a half years later.
2. In the Squirrel Hill Tree of Life Synagogue massacre, for example, the murder occurred, in cold blood, in October 2018. There was no doubt about the guilt of Robert Gregory Bowers, who was wounded, but for some reason not killed, at the scene. He was convicted by a Federal jury in June 2023, more than two and a half years later and sentenced to death in August 2013.

In neither of these cases was there a shadow of a doubt about guilt. The fact is that trying every single fully witnesses, broad-daylight murder, much less lesser crimes, is just not practical, which is why we use plea bargains. For obvious reasons, one cannot plea bargain Daniel Cavalcante, Sayfullo Saipov or Robert Gregory Bowers. Can someone point out any social utility in any of their lives? A shred?

Here's what I will give you. If you can find a way to try these people for crimes where guilt is crystal clear in less than a multiple of years, you may have a point. If it takes three-four years for such a person to come to trial when the outcome is obvious the cost to society is simply way too high.

 

[anna.]

So I guess that Calvacante's life is of equal value to the money earned by the sweat of the brow of people that work? Of equal value to the lives put in danger by the escape?

I would agree with you except the ones that insist on "trials" for already guilty people create so many procedural roadblocks that trials are drawn out, impractical and purposeless at best, and circuses like the Manson trial in California at worst. As a lawyer, I totally favor trials, but they should not take years. For example,

1. On October 31, 2017 Sayfullo Saipov mowed down eight people on a bicycle path in New York City. He was convicted in Manhattan Federal Court in May 2023, more than five and a half years later.
2. In the Squirrel Hill Tree of Life Synagogue massacre, for example, the murder occurred, in cold blood, in October 2018. There was no doubt about the guilt of Robert Gregory Bowers, who was wounded, but for some reason not killed, at the scene. He was convicted by a Federal jury in June 2023, more than two and a half years later and sentenced to death in August 2013.

In neither of these cases was there a shadow of a doubt about guilt. The fact is that trying every single fully witnesses, broad-daylight murder, much less lesser crimes, is just not practical, which is why we use plea bargains. For obvious reasons, one cannot plea bargain Daniel Cavalcante, Sayfullo Saipov or Robert Gregory Bowers. Can someone point out any social utility in any of their lives? A shred?

Here's what I will give you. If you can find a way to try these people for crimes where guilt is crystal clear in less than a multiple of years, you may have a point. If it takes three-four years for such a person to come to trial when the outcome is obvious the cost to society is simply way too high.

Are you serious? You're a lawyer? And you have a sliding scale as to whether someone deserves due process? What is the matter with you?

 

[jbg]

Are you serious? You're a lawyer? And you have a sliding scale as to whether someone deserves due process? What is the matter with you?

Does my bar admission make me check common sense at the door?

 

[anna.]

Does my bar admission make me check common sense at the door?

Did you check your ethics?

 

[Unfettered]

Do we have so little faith in ourselves that we value the life of illegal alien killer Danielo Cavacante over our own safety of even the public fiscal well-being?

Illegal Alien Killer Danelo Cavalcante is a Hero Back in Latin America

Pennsylvania Fugitive Quickly Became a ‘Cult Hero’ in Latin America: Report

He killed and was convicted in Brazil and Pennsylvania, escaped twice or three times. Could not he have just died in a "struggle"? Rinse, wash repeat.

On a separate note, 122 years to the day, President McKinley's killer was awaiting trial and execution (link). At that time in our history, we believed in ourselves. There was no question about Czolgosz's guilt. There were no endless appeals. There was no wallowing in societal guilt. How people in modern times could find redeeming value in Mssrs. Czolgosz or Sirhan, I leave to others. Wrong is wrong, pure and simple.

Should we have arrested Hitler, tried him and given him another chance?

I would offer that what we value, and should value, are human and civil rights. We should never not value these, even when we're talking about a person whose guilt is beyond doubt. Because when we allow human and civil rights to be subordinate to the accepted or expressed value of a given life, we abandon what makes us civilized. No, I would not advocate for "convenient accidents" to take the life of even known killers. I want the right of the accused (to an impartial trial) to be honored. Always. Because I want that for myself when I am accused. Always.

Only when the process of justice yields an outcome pointing to the loss of life on the part of the accused (now guilty) will I recognize the action as just.

I agree that endless appeals are not just. I agree that society must show backbone once conviction is established, even when justice requires the life of the offender. I do not believe that justice always includes "another chance." Clearly, sometimes it will not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does my bar admission make me check common sense at the door?

With these posts I'm not sure I believe that.
The law is the law. We don't resort to personal feelings and letting people die because we think it's ok for the cops to occasionally play executioner. That is never acceptable. We have a court system by trial by a jury of peers. That is the Constitution. That is the law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree that society must show backbone once conviction is established, even when justice requires the life of the offender.

The problem with that is we have too many people wrongly imprisoned, and far too many have been wrongly killed. That's why so many appeals are allowed for.
Amd as long as our primary sources of evidence are also often of the poorest quality (like eyewitness testimony and junk sciences like lie detectors amd bite mark ajd hand writing analysis) those will be necessary because too many mistakes will happen.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do we have so little faith in ourselves that we value the life of illegal alien killer Danielo Cavacante over our own safety of even the public fiscal well-being?

Illegal Alien Killer Danelo Cavalcante is a Hero Back in Latin America

Pennsylvania Fugitive Quickly Became a ‘Cult Hero’ in Latin America: Report

He killed and was convicted in Brazil and Pennsylvania, escaped twice or three times. Could not he have just died in a "struggle"? Rinse, wash repeat.

On a separate note, 122 years to the day, President McKinley's killer was awaiting trial and execution (link). At that time in our history, we believed in ourselves. There was no question about Czolgosz's guilt. There were no endless appeals. There was no wallowing in societal guilt. How people in modern times could find redeeming value in Mssrs. Czolgosz or Sirhan, I leave to others. Wrong is wrong, pure and simple.

Should we have arrested Hitler, tried him and given him another chance?

Yes, society would've been better off. He should be executed anyway for murdering those women.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So I guess that Calvacante's life is of equal value to the money earned by the sweat of the brow of people that work? Of equal value to the lives put in danger by the escape?

How much money and effort are due process worth to you?

To presume to compare the value of one life to another is a dangerous arrogance pregnant with the subtext of vigilantism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Could not he have just died in a "struggle"? Rinse, wash repeat.

What you are suggesting here is, "let's just set the law aside in this instance, for the sake of simplifying things." For what other reasons would you suggest "just set the law aside?" That is a very slippery slope.

Take a look at this little dialogue from "A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt, a play about Sir Thomas More, Henry VIII's Chancellor.

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”​

 

[jbg]

Did you check your ethics?

I would offer that what we value, and should value, are human and civil rights. We should never not value these, even when we're talking about a person whose guilt is beyond doubt. Because when we allow human and civil rights to be subordinate to the accepted or expressed value of a given life, we abandon what makes us civilized. No, I would not advocate for "convenient accidents" to take the life of even known killers. I want the right of the accused (to an impartial trial) to be honored. Always. Because I want that for myself when I am accused. Always.

Only when the process of justice yields an outcome pointing to the loss of life on the part of the accused (now guilty) will I recognize the action as just.

I agree that endless appeals are not just. I agree that society must show backbone once conviction is established, even when justice requires the life of the offender. I do not believe that justice always includes "another chance." Clearly, sometimes it will not.

With these posts I'm not sure I believe that.
The law is the law. We don't resort to personal feelings and letting people die because we think it's ok for the cops to occasionally play executioner. That is never acceptable. We have a court system by trial by a jury of peers. That is the Constitution. That is the law.

The problem with that is we have too many people wrongly imprisoned, and far too many have been wrongly killed. That's why so many appeals are allowed for.
Amd as long as our primary sources of evidence are also often of the poorest quality (like eyewitness testimony and junk sciences like lie detectors amd bite mark ajd hand writing analysis) those will be necessary because too many mistakes will happen.

How much money and effort are due process worth to you?

To presume to compare the value of one life to another is a dangerous arrogance pregnant with the subtext of vigilantism.

What you are suggesting here is, "let's just set the law aside in this instance, for the sake of simplifying things." For what other reasons would you suggest "just set the law aside?" That is a very slippery slope.

Take a look at this little dialogue from "A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt, a play about Sir Thomas More, Henry VIII's Chancellor.

William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”​

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”​

William Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”​

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”​

These responses all demonstrate the wisdom of the term "jumping the shark." This post definitely jumps the shark, in the sense of Jump the Shark: When Good Things Go Bad, by Jon Hein. The premise of this book is that someone "jumps the shark" when they can no longer be taken seriously. The title and expression comes from Fonz's vaulting over sharks when water-skiing.

I assume these posts are not representative of what you think. Even though "life has no price" it has to have one.

Yes, society would've been better off. He should be executed anyway for murdering those women.

Unfortunately I am not sure that Pennsylvania has the death penalty. Even in death penalty jurisdictions the process is too lengthy and complex to yield true justice.

 

[Unfettered]

These responses all demonstrate the wisdom of the term "jumping the shark." This post definitely jumps the shark, in the sense of Jump the Shark: When Good Things Go Bad, by Jon Hein. The premise of this book is that someone "jumps the shark" when they can no longer be taken seriously. The title and expression comes from Fonz's vaulting over sharks when water-skiing.

I assume these posts are not representative of what you think. Even though "life has no price" it has to have one.

Could you explain how upholding the right to life is equal to placing no price on life? I ask because that idea, which you appear to assert, doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[jbg]

Could you explain how upholding the right to life is equal to placing no price on life? I ask because that idea, which you appear to assert, doesn't make any sense to me.

What I'm saying is that theoretically we don't limit the price of life. If someone were poised with hammer over the Pieta the security officer at the museum might well shoot the vandal or nutcase dead.

 

[PureX]

One of the reasons so many states no longer execute people is because that practice has been shown to be grossly misapplied, and it resulted in the state-sanctioned executions of far too many innocent people. And many of those abuses were perpetrated by the police tortuting and tricking confessions out of people, and prosecutors hiding evidence and ignoring proper procedures.

And now you're suggesting that the police should have just executed this guy on the spot of their own accord???

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Unfortunately I am not sure that Pennsylvania has the death penalty. Even in death penalty jurisdictions the process is too lengthy and complex to yield true justice.

Damn. Yes, that is a problem. Death row prisoners just end up dying of old age a lot of the time.

 

[Unfettered]

What I'm saying is that theoretically we don't limit the price of life. If someone were poised with hammer over the Pieta the security officer at the museum might well shoot the vandal or nutcase dead.

Thanks for the follow-up. Your example doesn't seem to match the point you're making, though. At least, not to me. If we shoot dead a person who is actively threatening a work of art (which has no life, ironically), aren't we saying that there is a limit on the price of life, and that it is surpassed to such a degree when an inanimate object with high arbitrary value is being threatened that we don't even need to bother with due process? Your example would make more sense to me if you swapped a piece of art with another human being...

 

[jbg]

Damn. Yes, that is a problem. Death row prisoners just end up dying of old age a lot of the time.

Or being released as NY has done with the Brinks Robbery killers.

Thanks for the follow-up. Your example doesn't seem to match the point you're making, though. At least, not to me. If we shoot dead a person who is actively threatening a work of art (which has no life, ironically), aren't we saying that there is a limit on the price of life, and that it is surpassed to such a degree when an inanimate object with high arbitrary value is being threatened that we don't even need to bother with due process? Your example would make more sense to me if you swapped a piece of art with another human being...

My point is exactly that; society does not value the life of a psychotic more than an irreplaceable inaminate object nor should it.