The evidence continues to roll in on the Zimmerman case. While the new evidence is not entirely bad for the prosecution, it does contain some evidence that will likely bolster the defense of George Zimmerman in the second degree murder trial over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Regardless of the ultimate impact, the evidence again shows (in my opinion) that prosecutor Angela Corey over-charged the case in Florida.
Some of the new evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC (the active ingredient of marijuana) in his blood stream and urine. Martin was suspended from school due to a marijuana offense (though it involved an empty marijuana baggie). Another benefit to the defense is that Martin father is shown denying that the voice calling out for help was his son — though he later changed that view when he says he was given a better recording. Other witnesses have indicated that it Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Generally, the existence of drugs in the system of a victim or defendant is admissible. The suspension would appear inadmissible under standard evidentiary rules.
There is also evidence that some neighbors described Zimmerman as a bully and a racist. That would help bolster the reported hate crimes prosecution being considered by the Obama Administration, though I still have reservations based on the evidence as it currently stands. Also the police viewed the shooting as “avoidable” — if Zimmerman had left the matter to the police.
I am not sure how much of the neighbor’s view of Zimmerman as a bully or racist could come into evidence. Such accounts, however, can have the benefit of further discouraging Zimmerman from taking the stand as a witness — always a benefit to the prosecution because (while they are told that a defendant has a right not to testify (jurors expect to hear from defendants).
On the whole, however, I would view the evidence as more positive to the defense. First, I have previously said that I was most interested in the distance of the shot and forensics. It now appears that Martin was shot from an intermediate range (no more than 18 inches and as little as an inch away). That would support the claim of Zimmerman that they were in a wrestling fight when the gun was fired. The greater the distance the stronger the case for the prosecution. The defense will likely present expert testimony to try to reduce the range further on the stand. Also, the report does have people at the scene saying that Zimmerman’s nose appeared broken — supporting the later medical report of the family doctor (though such injuries could occur from Martin defending himself).
Moreover, at least two witnesses appear to support Zimmerman in describing the man in the hoodie at straddling the other man and throwing punches. The report state that the man in the “‘hoodie’ [was] on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.’ He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.” One report also says that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.
While the reports blame Zimmerman for getting out of his vehicle (he says that he was trying to get a house number for the police), that is not itself a crime. Of course, none of this means that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Given the presumption of innocence and the need to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, this evidence presents an added problem for the prosecution in my view. I have expressed skepticism over the way the case has developed and how it has been charged from the outset. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view this as a strong defense case even on the manslaughter charge, particularly given the poor police work at the scene.
What do you think?
Here is the police report.
Source: ABC and NY Daily News
@Gene: Yes (cautiously). The real killer is society, as represented by
Tony, for me it’s not just the following order, it’s the one for the collective that bothers me too. It triggers series of texts and speeches. I can’t deny this sends shivers down my spine. What do you think, if we kill all the murderers, don’t you think our collective will be quite capable to produce new ones? Besides, America doesn’t collectively support the death penalty.
Just like Americans were collectively lured into the Iran war by forgeries, politicized intelligence and media magic, with ever talking head seemingly having scissors in the brain, always aware what had to be cut out. Thus I wonder if the standard imagery of the soldier giving his live for his country wasn’t reduced to a myth by the latest war. Just as the America collectively standing shoulder to shoulder in the War against Terrorism had a really peculiar ring to it. First we take Afghanistan, then we take Iraq, then Mr Faster Please Ledeen et al demanded to march on to Syria and finally the core devil Iran.
Without looking it up again, if you write something about having been a non-shooting soldier under an atomic threat, what exactly do you mean? When was that and where were you. You can’t be talking about the Cuba crisis? Are you?
Besides, I could imagine you don’t like to write about it, but what exactly happened to your siblings and when and where were they murdered? This is a missing link for me, I would really like to know. Maybe it helps to better understand.
Tony C, I didn’t do my own research on this, but was told by an Orthodox Rabbi in about 1960, that according to the death sentence law in ancient Hebrew jurisprudence, 17 judges had to decide unanimously to impose the death sentence and they had to sit all AROUND the defendant, witnesses and advocates so that at every point in the whole proceeding, “each judge could see into the eyes of every other judge.” I was told that this would insure that they would not “lie” with their eyes, subject as they were to the censure of their brethren (yes, no women) on the bench. (I don’t know how Deborah got to be a judge, though — maybe in a different kind of court, under that tree.) Anyway, FWIW, that is what I learned about the death sentence then and there, although clearly there were plenty of crimes for which it was prescribed. Including Blasphemy. (OY, this thread would be thinned, wouldn’t it?)
Tony C, Gene H, I never meant to suggest that a soldier should be meant to feel diminished. Of course not! He or she is being asked (or forced) to do something very hard and very dangerous and when he or she does it, he or she should not be MADE to feel diminished. Hell no!
What I mean is that all the soldiers I have spoken with HAVE felt diminished. They felt that they LOST something. Only one that I have ever known (and I did not speak with him personally, only heard him tell his story) did not speak of this issue; in my opinion, based on strictly unrelated experiences I had of him having nothing to do with his wartime stories, I think he was very short on the finer human feelings anyway. But it didn’t come up and I didn’t speak with him one-on-one.
Let me take an example out of the literature I am familiar with because of my work in the domestic violence and child abuse areas. Apparently, one of the commonest (so common it ends up on TV cop dramas on a regular basis in a very cliche and irritating form) reactions kids have to being sexually abused is a feeling that they are diminished by it. They are not as good as they were before, or not worth as much as before, etc. etc. blah blah blah. These kids don’t cognitively think about how they should react to the experience. If they are of the age of reason and they read about it, all the literature will tell them all the right formulaic things: “It wasn’t your fault; you didn’t do anything to cause it; you didn’t do anything wrong; the wrong was on the part of whoever did this to you,” etc. But they still struggle for years, some of them for lifetimes, with those feelings, and that has been proven so in controlled study after controlled study after controlled study.
Not that they SHOULD feel diminished, just that it comes with the territory.
It has been difficult for me to discuss my ideas about capital punishment with you, Tony C, because of my immense respect for you and my sorrow about your losses. But I don’t hold my opinions because I feel any defensive feelings about the defendants who were/are really guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted.
The real issues for me are:
1. “The death penalty, humanely administered, is Justice.” To me, the death penalty cannot even be fairly administered, much less humanely. Our justice system is so grossly corrupted in all different ways that it cannot be trusted to administer even lesser punishments properly, much less life and death. The Texas case of Todd Willingham shows how badly wrong this can go, and often does.
2. Many people (like your brothers) die too soon without having “deserved” death at all. I think the society’s use of death AS PUNISHMENT actually makes the untimely death of an innocent much worse. For me (when my mother died too young) it did.
3. It seems to me that, although an executioner may feel that he is not diminished by his work, it is not the place of the state to make somebody act as an executioner. I just can’t get past that.
Maybe this has something to do with the fact that I am culturally Jewish. I don’t know.
I remember reading a habeas corpus case — a death sentence case that went up on a federal habeas corpus. The prosecutor signed an affidavit FOR the defendant that he should get a hearing on the issue of whether or not he had a fair trial! It was most extraordinary! What had happened was that the prosecutor had gone for the death penalty and gotten it, and then years later, was contacted by someone in the death penalty appeals branch of that state, and they asked him about the jury selection process. Something made him decide to talk about it; he didn’t have to do so. (He was already retired and the judge had died already; the habeas was something like ten years after the conviction.) The prosecutor swore in that affidavit that he had been in the middle of jury selection one day when the judge called a break, and the lawyers went here and there for a cup of coffee or a phone call, whatever. As he passed the judge’s chambers in a small courthouse, the door opened, and the judge crooked his finger at the prosecutor and said, “come here, come here.” He went into chambers and the judge closed the door and said to him, “What are you DOING? You can’t empanel any Jews on this jury!” The prosecutor said he was surprised by this comment, and hadn’t even thought of religion as an issue because the case had nothing to do with religion. Since he looked mystified, the judge explained, “Jews won’t give you the death penalty; they’ll hold out forever; you’ll LOSE!” So the prosecutor went out there and eliminated two jurors. One of them was not even a Jew! (She had a Jewish name but it was her married name.) Later, he felt that the jury pool had been stained by his judge-advised efforts to keep Jews off the jury. I think in that case, the death sentence was upheld anyway; very few meet any other kind of result because of the political implications, among other things. There’s a lot of “harmless error” kind of appellate responses.
Anyway, that’s where I’m coming from.
If Zimmerman had been charged with First Degree Murder, and convicted, and gotten the death sentence, I would be working hard on getting him clemency or commutation. I’m sure of it.
Tony,
I agree. I grew up reading X-Men and to my mind “X-Men: First Class” was by far the best film of the lot and largely due to Fassbender’s Magneto. That’s not a slam on Ian McKellen either. He was Gandalf in LOTR. He’s a fine actor I’ve admired for a long time and he did a fine job as the older Magneto and he really looked the part. He just didn’t have the menace and pathos of Fassbender’s Magneto and that “reluctant villain” element was always present in the comics character.
Sling, are you aware of Dave Knechel’s photo of Twin Trees Lane?
He went there and took some photos. It is interesting to actually see cars parked in the road. I am bit jealous, I am sure he made more. Google and Google Earth are not bad, but they do not quite give you this down in the streets feeling.
@Sling: Don’t get me started on the drone wars.
My point was that those soldiers are normal people; and the abstraction of the task, and remoteness of the task, makes it all unreal enough that the consequences of the task, even though intellectually they know it is real, feel emotionally like a video game, and do not make them feel “diminished.” I believe the military orchestrates that dichotomy for them on purpose; at least that was my experience in the military.
@Gene: Magneto is awesome.
but consider the situation when the order is found out to be unjust and/or illegal? Then “I was just following orders” becomes one of the weakest defenses possible for an action.
Which is why I would argue for a higher standard of guilt than the currently abused “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Like the requirement for two juries to both unanimously agree on the verdict.
Also why I would argue for the public employee most directly responsible for deciding guilt, after some thought I would say the most senior judge on an automatic appeal panel, to personally issue the fatal command. Such people are tasked by us with life and death decisions, and I think that removes the responsibility of “I was just following orders,” in current circumstances such judges give the orders to proceed with the execution. Why allow that responsibility to be delegated? It isn’t as if the responsibility comes along so often it would disrupt their schedule; no more so than a random sick day.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/trayvon-martin-case-witnesses-change-stories_n_1539077.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl4%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D163459
I am waiting for jury decision not mine but leaked Martin had THC in system. always thght marijuana slowed you down not gave you more energy and aggression
Tony: Modern soldiers do not kill people in the heat of battle; a soldier in Indiana remotely piloting an armed drone in Afghanistan is told by headset to “light up” a house; he types on a keyboard and fires missiles that kill twenty people. Then he has lunch.
Don’t get me started on the drone wars.
The soldier being able to have lunch and later drive home to the wife and kids for dinner and a peaceful night , probably has a lot to do with why the Administration is highly resistant to reports of the victims including significant numbers of innocent civilians including women and children.
Like 69 children in one attack
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html
Tony,
“@Gene: Yes (cautiously). ”
What you say is all well and good beyond that. Soldiers should not be made to feel diminished for doing their duty etc., but consider the situation when the order is found out to be unjust and/or illegal? Then “I was just following orders” becomes one of the weakest defenses possible for an action. In the words of Magneto as played by brilliant German/Irish actor Michael Fassbender (and by many real life Jews and Roma), “I’ve been at the mercy of men following orders. Never again.” I’ll stipulate it’s a sticky wicket, but I’m sure “I was just following orders” is not always sufficient in itself.
@Sling: I don’t think that killing someone in the heat of battle can be compared to…
Modern soldiers do not kill people in the heat of battle; a soldier in Indiana remotely piloting an armed drone in Afghanistan is told by headset to “light up” a house; he types on a keyboard and fires missiles that kill twenty people. Then he has lunch.
The trick the military uses is to make the deaths abstract and routine, and the consequences of failing to do your job severe and very real.
The final command can be given by somebody with no personal contact with the prisoner, that has never seen the prisoner, and does not see the prisoner before, during, or after the sentence is carried out. It can be done, for example, by the warden of another prison in the same state. Or make it the responsibility of the judge that denied the final appeal (or if that judge died, the senior judge on that panel). The job is to type a code into a box and press Enter.
If it needs to be even further abstracted, the fatal command can be given a full week earlier; and start a countdown timer that can be stopped by several means, such as a court order communicated to the warden or the governor. The prison guards deliver the gurney to the chamber an hour before the prescribed time; but they are not responsible for the death. If the timer is not stopped, at midnight the carbon monoxide is released in a sealed room, once monitors report death is achieved it is vented out, and the guards can collect the body.
That puts plenty of time distance between the fatal command and the effect of the fatal command.
Sling T, very good breakdown with real physics and real physical facts being used to analyze it. This is what forensic scientists do when they figure out how automobile accidents occurred.
About the idea that Martin approached the SUV to ask why Zimmerman was following him — it’s obviously a fiction, because until George Zimmerman called the police he was NOT following Martin, and Martin would have had to just taken it into his head for no reason. Furthermore, why would Zimmerman not have said to the police, “and he came up to the car and asked me why I’m following him so I got scared and rolled up the window, so hurry up and get out here, he’s still around”!
One fiction after another.
Zimmerman marked, followed and killed a kid.
One tickler for later:
It seems Zimmerman told the cops that
– Martin had circled the SUV
– This scared Zimmerman so he wound up the window to avoid a confrontation
The cops now find it curious that a Zimmerman who was scared and wanted to avoid confrontation ends up wandering around in the dark looking for the person who scared him.
I’ve seen reports that the cops told Martin’s parent a few days after the shooting that there had been two encounters.
In the first, Martin had approached the SUV and asked “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman replied that he was not following and had wound up the window.
If this happened, it probably happened before Zimmerman’s call – but he does not mention it in the call.
It might have happened after the call, if Zimmerman returned to the SUV and Martin approached him then. But that doesn’t seem to fit.
Manny O,
Where In The World Was George Zimmerman?
Maps do not give opinions – they give distances and possible routes
Calculations of speed multiplied by time do not give opinions. They give distances.
Despite the existence of maps being pointed out to you, you still persist in getting things wildly wrong.
For this exercise, please look at a map of the area.
If you have difficulty using scales to measure distances on maps, then Google Earth would be an excellent aid for you. It’s got a ‘ruler’ tool for measuring straight-line distance between two points.
In either Google Maps or Google Earth, a search for the address will get you to the area.
Google Earth gets the general area, so make it go to coordinates 28 47’ 35 N , 19 48 01 W
Set the unit of that ruler tool to feet. Click on one position and move the mouse to another position. A line will be drawn and the tool window will give you a readout of the distance.
In Part.1, we’ll assume that the SUV was left at the bend of Twin Trees (at near those coordinates)
It is not really possible that the SUV was there for the beginning and during most of Zimmerman’s call, but we’ll say it ended up there in order to give you the greatest possible assistance for your point of view.
Consider the recording of the call http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgR7gCxXQYg
2:10 We hear the car door opening. And we hear Z getting out
2:20 The walking noises start. We hear him walking and “F***ing c***s
2:28 Zimmerman says “OK” in response to “We don’t need you to do that”.
That’s 8 seconds of him walking. Up to the “OK”
Up above, you said that you measured this walk as being for 10 seconds, so we’ll accept that to give you the greatest possible assistance for your point of view.
——————-
Now, at the time he says “OK”, Where In The World Was George Zimmerman?
From the sound pattern, Zimmerman is moving at a determined brisk pace. That’s about 4 miles per hour. That’s 5.9 feet per second.
After 10 seconds of that pace, he’s covered about 59 feet.
In Google Earth, click on the vehicle that in the image is handily parked in the closed possible location relative to where the action took place,
Move the cursor in the direction of the footpath and stop at 59 feet,
Where are you?
You are have only reached the first corner of the house. You are still in the Twin Trees street. You have only just begun to move along the side of the house.
This is where Zimmerman most probably said “OK”, assuming that he drove the SUV right up into the bend while following on wheels. If the SUV is farther back towards the clubhouse, then he hasn’t even got that far.
Looking at this position, this would have been the limit of what would be advisable under common sense and NW rules/guidelines. Any further and he’s getting reckless.
————————
Now what?
He continued walking.
2:42: Walking noises stop as dispatcher asks Z for name etc. 43-28 = 14 secs of walking
I think that by now, you have accepted that Zimmerman did not turn around when he said “OK”, because that would take him back to the SUV – and as you can see above, he would not have gotten anywhere near the pathway down between the houses.
He just kept on going the way he had been going
14 seconds at a fast determined walk takes him about a further 82 feet.
Use the Google Earth ruler to take you beyond that first house corner.
55 feet would get him to the T-junction of the footpaths.
He could get 27 feet down that path to get to 82 feet.
He’s still 30 to 40 feet short of where they ended up.
Now…this is interesting. He appears to be stopped, or certainly not walking fast, while giving details to the dispatcher.
3:34. Z gives his home address and then says
“Oh crap. I don’t want to give that all out. I don’t know where this kid is.
Either Zimmerman thinks the bad guys have hacked into the telephone system and will learn his address.
Or
He suspects the kid might be close enough to overhear his address – and target him.
He doesn’t know. It’s too dark.
Oh. And notice that he refers to the “kid”. He’s well aware that he’s not dealing with an adult.
4:06 call ends
Then there’s a gap of about 2 minutes before the shot, where we don’t know what is going on.
The times recorded for the Martin/Girlfriend calls may shed some light.
When Zimmerman ends the call, we seem to have him a bit down that path in the dark, not knowing where this punk who always gets away is at, suspecting even that the kid might be within earshot – and perhaps 30 to 40 feet short of where they ended up.
It seems the walk of about 140 feet from his SUV to that position took him 24 seconds at a fast walk.
A walk back at a normal human walking pace of 3 miles per hour = 4.4 feet per second would take him just over 30 seconds.
Even then, he didn’t turn back to the SUV.
Did he just stand there immobile for nearly 2 minutes?
How did he end up another 30 to 40 feet onward?
Caveat: We don’t know that this was the path that he took (from the bend in Twin Trees to the footpath). It’s a best guess.
========================
Coming up in a later post, maybe tomorrow:
More on maps, times and distances, Zimmerman’s call and the stretch from the Clubhouse to the bend.
Stand Your Ground
Manny O: “Any jury is going to hear the witness statement about Martin having this guy pinned doing his MMA thing and they are going to easily see that Zimmerman was using this florida statute appropriately and that Z had no doubt he was at great risk for GREAT BODILY HARM”
Unfortunately for Zimmerman, the trial will not consist of this witness statement alone. It will not exclude everything but the fight.
Even within the fight, it’s not as simple as you think.
All of Zimmerman’s statement to the police are still withheld, but some of what Zimmerman said to the police in a number of statements has leaked out and some was revealed unplanned during the bail bond hearing.
Zimmerman said that Martin had his hand over his (z’s) mouth and nose so he couldn’t breathe.
Zimmerman said that he and Martin struggled over the gun.
Zimmerman said that the fight started when he reached for his phone.
Martin had been followed by a stranger, first from a SUV and then on foot behind the houses. There was no good explanation for this as far as he was concerned. The follower is just a weird guy. When they come face to face and he challenges the weird guy, the weird guy makes no attempt to explain.
We don’t know if the gun was visible, or if actually concealed, when it became visible.
We don’t know if Zimmerman tried to discourage Martin from attack or flight by warning him that he had a gun.
If you were aware that the person had a gun, his reaching for a phone could be interpreted as a reach for a gun.
One thing is sure, if a weird guy in the dark was following you and you saw he had a gun, you would freak out. You might be more concerned about stopping the weird guy from using the gun than you be concerned about exhortations from well-intentioned bystanders that perhaps you might consider stopping the fight.
That sort of picture will also be in the jury’s mind.
It is also not absolutely certain which of two was doing the main shouting. If Martin is fighting to stop Zimmerman from using the gun, he very well could have been screaming for help.
If Zimmerman says that Martin had a hand over Z’s mouth and nose, Z can’t be shouting while he’s doing that.
Witnesses – who are keeping their distances – are not always absolutely reliable – and can change the tune when they realise that they might face cross examination.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/trayvon-martin-case-witnesses-change-stories_n_1539077.html
And then there was the woman who said it was Martin calling, but the cops told her she was mistaken.
You would have it that the SYG Law in effect means that anyone can legally provoke a fight, get a few bruises and then shoot the person they provoked.
What do the authors of that law think it means?
——————————————————————
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401619-504083/author-of-stand-your-ground-law-george-zimmerman-should-probably-be-arrested-for-killing-trayvon-martin/
“He has no protection under my law,” former Sen. Durell Peaden
It is the fact that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator’s advice not to follow Martin that former Sen. Peaden says disqualifies him from claiming self-defense under the law.
“The guy lost his defense right then,” Peaden told the Miami Herald. “When he said ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”
Rep. Dennis Baxley, Peaden’s co-sponsor in the Florida House, agrees with his former colleague, telling the newspaper that the law does not license neighborhood watch or others who feel “like they have the authority to pursue and confront people. That is aggravating an incident right there.”
Baxley said. “It’s about crime watch,” he said. “What are the limitations of crime watch? Are you allowed to jump out and follow people and confront them? What do you think is going to happen? That’s where it starts.”
——————————————————————-
Before you respond with “He said OK, so he stopped following” it would save you some embarrassment if you read my following post first.
Manny O: “What NW “rules”?, Which of the many different national NW rules should now be binding? There are no binding “rules” anymore than there are binding rules on how you should raise your kids or how you should practice personal hygiene. There are guidelines and opinions, but no laws and no rules.”
For example:
https://www.bja.gov/Publications/NSA_NW_Manual.pdf
Page 17
Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous.
A major question before a jury would be:
Was Zimmerman’s behaviour reasonable? or was it reckless?
It wouldn’t be
What law did he break in carrying a weapon, going into the dark and accosting someone who he believed to be a suspicious person and who he suspected might be armed and dangerous?
Manny O,
First: Your Point (5) above
You wrote: “5) Martin is witnessed viciously beating Zimmerman in a pinned position and Zimmerman shoots him after crying for help 14-20 times for SOMEONE ANYONE to intervene so he would not have to shoot Martin.”
I responded: “Your description is not informed by witness statements available. It is also ‘creative’.
I added a fuller description of the fight, adding that sounds of an argument were overheard and an element of chasing was observed. It wasn’t simply someone being decked, straddled and punched – with shouting.
When I said “not informed by” I meant that it was selective and omitted information.
When I said “creative” I was referring to your creation of the description “viciously” and to your flight of fancy regarding Zimmerman calling “for SOMEONE ANYONE to intervene so he would not have to shoot Martin.
All we have is a fight and shouting, You coloured that up into a bad novel.
On the Death Sentence thing:
I don’t think that killing someone in the heat of battle can be compared to
Having your breakfast
Driving to work
Pulling a switch and ending the life of someone who is passive and strapped down.
It must at the very least kill the appetite for lunch.
@Malisha: My argument is, like those soldiers, that an executioner can feel like he is doing the right thing, and although it is a sad thing, it is a justifiable thing and not wrong to follow a righteous order. I didn’t say he would be happy to do it, I said he would not feel diminished, which I think means feeling like less of a human being. I do not believe, as Sling claimed, that The act of execution must surely diminish the person throwing the switch. I do not believe there would have to be something “wrong with him” to be able to do that, any more than there would be something wrong with the judge or jury that handed down the sentence. I think, for judge, jury, and executioner, that the mind can be filled with righteous resolve to punish a heinous crime and/or permanently and surely eliminate a lethal threat to society.
@bettykath: Is it really justice or is it retribution?
What is the difference, in your mind?
I think it is justice, retribution would be making them feel the same fear, pain, and suffering they induced. We do not try to do that, our point is to remove a threat from society.
But much of Justice is punishment for acts we deem wrong, to try and correct behavior or provide a deterrent for the acts we deem wrong. Like theft or fraud. So Justice and Retribution necessarily overlap, don’t they? If there is NO punishment, and NO retribution, what would stop people from just ignoring the laws they didn’t agree with?
Once a person has murdered and is no longer ever going to be fit to rejoin society, what is the point of punishing them until they die a natural death? Isn’t THAT the retribution? Plus it risks escape, and risks the lives of guards and other inmates through exposure to a person known to lack the self control to not kill people.
The death penalty, humanely administered, is Justice. A lifetime of misery in prison, knowing you will die there and never again be free or part of society, seems like Retribution to me.