Legal Commentary

As detailed in this post at my home blog, a high-profile Ohio multiple murder case is now a sentencing story after Matthew Hoffman pleaded guilty this morning in the horrific dismemberment slayings of a Knox County woman, her son and a family friend.  As detailed  detailed in this local story, in addition to mass murder, Hoffman  was also  child rapist who violated, bound and gagged a 13-year-old girl in the basement of his home after his triple murder.  But Hoffman is not facing the death penalty: "Knox County Prosecutor John Thatcher said that the indictment did not contain death-penalty specifications in accordance with the wishes of the victims' families."

Given my utilitarian perspectives on punishment and sentencing, I have mixed feelings about the worst criminals cutting deals to avoid the worst punishment and also about the "wishes" of victims playing a central role in prosecutorial and sentencing decision-making.  But, as the title of this post indicates, I am blogging about this case in the hope of hearing from (devout?) retributivists about what they think about these kinds of plea deals. 

I know Kant thought all murderers deserved the punishment of death and also that some modern retributivists categorically believe, in sharp contrast to Kant, that even the worst mass murderers never deserve death.  But assuming there are some committed retributivists who believe that death is a deserved (or at least justifiable) punishment in some case, I wonder about the retributivist reaction to a decision to take death off the table as part of a plea deal that was prompted by "the wishes of the victims' families."