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.

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.

Put another way, in the absence of other explanations, the concept of personal responsibility for actions still holds, I think.

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?

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.

“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?

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.