I remembered first hearing about Jessica Lunsford’s disappearance when it happened. She’d only been gone a few weeks when a man named John Couey confessed to her kidnap, rape and murder. He’d buried her alive in trash bags.
He’s been found guilty. Sentencing is due next week, either life in prison without parole — or death.
I’m not generally a proponent of killing criminals. I think some states — notably Texas — are disturbingly gung-ho about it, all but forming lynch mobs in their eagerness to kill convicts, even those who were teenagers when convicted, or who are mentally retarded.
But if there’s an argument in favor of execution, Couey is as strong as they come.
I’m not blinkered by the notion that there’s inherent worth in a human. That suggests something dangerously close to ensoulment or divine blessing, neither of which seems possible to me. After all, if we believe in a soul and we accept the fact of evolution, we must concede that at some point in our evolutionary development an animal mother, lacking a soul, gave birth to a human infant that did have a soul. This idea should damned well be troubling to anyone who believes in the ghost story. As to some kind of deity blessing humans specifically … there just isn’t any evidence for such a claim.
This means that, to me, while anyone can arguably have a certain baseline level of arbitrary worth (everyone is someone’s child, after all), it’s possible for that worth to be enriched through certain acts, and it’s also possible for the worth to be reduced by other acts.
For instance, if you spend your life working tirelessly as a physician or firefighter or police officer or soldier, trying every day to help or defend others, putting yourself in harm’s way to assist others or so on, I think that imparts a measure of value to your life that simply would be lacking if instead you lived off your parents and spent all your time playing Xbox. Given a choice to save either a shiftless console addict or a nurse, I know which life I’d consider more worthy of sparing.
Then, too, people can and sometimes do change; a life that seemed doomed to end in pointless dissipation can be turned around; if it’s possible to do so, it should be. So while it can be argued that our video-game freak is currently worth less than the nurse, it’s conceivable that, in ten years’ time, he will have made up for his lassitude and turned out to be a pretty decent human being.
The flipside should be obvious. A murderer tests — profoundly — the idea of inherent human worth, but it can be argued that a murderer might come to realize the nature of his deed, might develop a better understanding of what he’d done, and may go on to eloquently speak against the act, possibly even helping prevent murders by others in the future. I don’t know offhand of any verifiable examples of this, but the possibility of it makes me think that by and large killing killers isn’t the best reflex.
And then we have creatures such as Couey. He doesn’t even have the argument in his favor of youthful indiscretion — he was nearly 50 when he raped that preteen girl and, in total callousness to her dread, buried her alive. She was conscious and aware when he did it; she poked some fingers through the trash bags before she died. She choked on her own waste gas with a wretched man’s semen in her body.
I’m pretty sure Couey doesn’t deserve to live. But it’s not just because of the particularly vicious nature of his crime. It’s not just because of the deliberate way he terrorized and murdered a child. It’s because he could have chosen not to do it at any time, and because he so obviously doesn’t care about others’ suffering. That’s bad enough and, had his victim been an adult, might warrant life in prison; but his victim was not an adult. Jessica was nine years old. She didn’t even have enough time to make a substantial volume of mistakes or victories. Her opportunities were taken from her. She hadn’t really even begun to live before she was assaulted and murdered for the sins of being young, pretty and naïve.
That, to me, makes his crime unforgivable. The rape was terrible. The murder was the capper.
We already have a world full of heartless killers. We already groan under the weight of discompassionate behavior. We already suffer at the hands of those who seem to enjoy imparting suffering. So should Couey get the death sentence I won’t be celebrating; but in this particular case I think a cool, deliberate termination of a life rendered utterly worthless is in order.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
by thethirdchimpanzee
10 Mar 2007 at 00:48
I’m normally staunchly opposed to the death penalty. I think a nation *is* judged by how it treats it’s worst criminals, and the idea that, in this country, men in uniforms working for the government casually march people off to death chambers really creeps me out.
But then again, sometimes I think certain people have really forfeited their right to suck down air.
Hell, if this guy came withing 100 feet of any of my kids, I’d pop a cap in his ass…no, head…in a New York minute and feel no more remorse than if I put down a rabid dog threatening my kids.
I won’t shed a tear when this guy is gone — only feel some bit of remorse that he didn’t feel the same pain and terror that his victim felt in her last minutes on this planet.
Pingback
by That Caps It. at The Indigestible
14 Mar 2007 at 15:15
[…] I wrote last week about John Couey, the man who raped and then killed a nine-year-old girl, from the context in favor of his receiving the death penalty — not an easy view for me to take, but in this case I felt that was the most sensible approach. […]
Pingback
by Shorter Satan: John Evander Couey, Come on Down! at The Indigestible
08 Aug 2007 at 13:10
[…] This isn’t a cause for celebration. Killing Couey will not resurrect his victim. But as I commented before, given the absolutely horrendous nature of his crime, I don’t believe there is any purpose in keeping this man alive. […]
by Jen
08 Aug 2007 at 20:05
Late comment, I know.
“Given a choice to save either a shiftless console addict or a nurse, I know which life I’d consider more worthy of sparing.”
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I would assume from this post you believe in free will. You’re considering one human as more worthy than another because you believe they made more morally correct choices. (Like you said, “It’s because he could have chosen not to do it at any time”).
To me, this abstract magical property of free will and choice seems much more in step with the soul argument than saying that every human is of equal worth. I believe everyone’s equal precisely because I don’t believe in a soul. How can anyone be inherently “good” or “evil”… people are just brains with bodies.
Some people do horrible things. But unless you find a way to inject free will into the biochemistry of neurons, how can you say that they deserve not to have this beautiful thing we call consciousness for what was physically the only possible outcome?
On the other hand… if I were forced to choose between saving a brutal rapist or a fireman, I would choose the fireman. But that’s because he benefits society more. I don’t think the fireman is inherently any more worthy a human being than the rapist; I don’t either deserve to die, but (unfortunately from the rapist), the fireman is simply more useful to us (and less detrimental). It’s for this reason I support imprisonment for people who clearly will continue to harm others if let free. But… what’s the purpose of killing a man like Couey?
Revenge?
by Warren
08 Aug 2007 at 23:14
Good point about free will; but I wasn’t really trying to suggest the existence of a mythical or nonexistent quality. Yes, choice is a factor. Yes, it’s probably a safe bet that what we perceive as choice is the product of chemical reactions and therefore free will doesn’t strictly exist. However, a large part of a “self-actualized” person’s decisions appears to stem from “free will” and, given the context, I think in most cases it’s appropriate to behave as though this free will exists.
Put another way, in the absence of other explanations, the concept of personal responsibility for actions still holds, I think.
No; economics. He will never serve a useful function and he has, in fact, proved that he cannot be allowed to exist in a world we like to think of as civilized. He’s already violated social rules several times, and his continuing presence would only be a drain on resources that oculd more effectively be channeled toward, say, someone with a hope of rehabilitation or “redemption”.
If I have a tumor and irradiate it, I’m not doing it vengefully. I’m simply trying to kill off a dysfunctional set of cells before it kills me by overtaking my coherent (!) set of interdependent sub-systems.
Now I know that a human being is considerably different from a melanoma; however, spending tens of thousands of dollars per year to keep alive a child rapist and murderer is not something that I can, on balance, support.
Stopping the attack and murder before it had happened would have been ideal. But in order to do that we would have to use a time machine to roll back about 50 years and take Couey away from the circumstances that led to this sad state of affairs today. It’s too late for that, and since he escalated his crime (he’d offended but not murdered before), the safest conclusion to draw is that rehabilitation is at this point impossible.
I don’t think it’s a good thing he might be killed by Florida, but given the extremely limited set of choices we have left to us now, I think it’s probably the optimal decision.
by Jen S
09 Aug 2007 at 21:02
I really don’t know if the death penalty is cheaper than life without parole. The first google hit for “cost death penalty” is this site, which shows a lot of evidence that the death penalty costs much more. But, this seems to be a biased site. On the other end of bias is this site, which argues that the death penalty is cheaper.
Honestly, I don’t know which is right. But it doesn’t seem to be obvious that the death penalty saves money.
This is clearly a guy who cannot be welcomed into society. But, he is still human with human feelings. His feelings might function differently than the average person (e.g. he might not have the capacity for empathy), but he still probably likes his ability to be conscious. Do we stop showing empathy for him if he can’t show empathy for others?
If we didn’t have the physical ability to lock him up and keep him isolated from the rest of society, then I would be in favor of killing him. But otherwise, I don’t see the need. Maybe if it is true that we’re saving money, than might be a valid reason. I still don’t agree with it morally… but you can’t really argue morals.
In any case, I stumbled upon your blog a couple months ago, and it’s quickly been added to my short-list. Keep it up.
by Warren
10 Aug 2007 at 14:33
I’m not so sure that it’s about the idea of saving money by capital punishment so much as it’s the psychological ick factor of pouring money into keeping a creature like Couey alive — particularly if you remember that he could, for instance, sue on a whim.
His lack of empathy is not sufficient cause for him to be killed; it’s his lack of empathy which led first to rape, then to rape and murder that I think has made it hard to argue in favor of keeping him alive.
The world is full of socially dysfunctional people, and yet they do well. Some even have varying degrees of success; some have even made it as far as the White House. Simply not fitting in — even utterly lacking empathy — is insufficient grounds for removing someone from society.
Conversely, I’m unsure that recognizing the total worthlessness of an individual is equal to lack of empathization with that person. I suppose I might have felt differently if Couey had displayed any remorse or shame; but then, I imagine that most people capable of such emotions would not have committed such a crime in the first place.
I can feel bad for him, just as I can feel bad for a dog that’s been abused and beaten and then bites a child; but recognizing the abuse of the dog as leading to the attack on the child does not change the fact that the dog must be put down.
Thanks for the kind words on the overall experience here. I try to keep it varied; and I always appreciate rational, thoughtful disagreement.
Pingback
by The Indigestible » Blog Archive » Just in time to make Halloween feel a little safer…
30 Sep 2009 at 15:36
[…] …John Evander Couey, a piece of human filth who raped a nine-year-old girl (probably repeatedly) in 2005, then buried her alive and left her to die and who was later given the capital sentence for his vile deeds, did us all a favor by dropping dead yesterday. […]