|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
For those of you unfamiliar with American politics, here's a very very brief primer:
And now, onto the main course!
Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry has drawn a lot of fire for his stance on execution and the fact that, during the course of his tenure as governor of Texas, he has authorized a little over 200 state executions of criminals. It's also possible (but not determined) that an innocent man was executed on his watch. When questioned about it during a debate in front of an audience, he was cheered rather loudly.
Later on in the blogs and on the news, people reacted to the cheering, both negatively and positively.
I thought I'd write about my own thoughts on the death penalty, violence, justice, and people's reactions and reactions to reactions.
The American Death Penalty and Respect
I don't like the death penalty.
There's a lot of reasons I don't like it. Philosophically, it seems that taking the life of another human is really really hard to justify, even assuming that the person is guilty. Either the idea that someone could die without being allowed to seek redemption, or the idea that it's a good idea to fundamentally end the existence of a sapient being scares me. In fact, even thinking about the idea of purposefully ending someone's consciousness is horrifying to contemplate. Justice-wise, it also seems a little... well, it seems a little "no-take-backs" for my taste. We offer a lot of appeals and stuff, but you see dudes who plead guilty to avoid the death penalty rather than defend themselves, then they're exonerated 30 years later and I'm just thinking "well... maybe we shouldn't have the death penalty in the first place, just in case we kill someone for no reason." And then in terms of, say, prevention, it doesn't seem like executing 1-2 people a year (while people with similar crimes don't get executed) after like a 20 year wait through the appeals process is really going to scare people off. Crazy people gonna be crazy.
All that being said, I can totally understand WHY those who support the death penalty do. I understand the belief that when someone violates the social contract heavily enough, you could believe they deserve not just to be ejected from society (put in prison) but to be ejected from reality itself, their very existence terminated. I don't agree, but I can see where people come from when they say that.
What I don't understand is why anyone would enjoy or cheer at thoughts of the death penalty or execution. Even if you do believe that certain people need to be killed to make society better, shouldn't these events be sombre and saddening? I think that when someone commits a crime so horrific that he is not just removed from society with no rehabilitation, but rather, executed... that's not a failure of the criminal.
That's a failure of us as a society. If only we had worked harder, provided better, created a just world where everyone had the opportunity to make something of themselves, maybe he'd have gotten a job and a normal life. Maybe he wouldn't have grown up a ghetto full of drug dealers and drug addicts. Maybe he would have gone to a good school and learned to play the violin and became a famous musician.
If only we had a better government that, even granted that he grew up in a bad community, was able to provide jobs and poverty relief to people in there! If only we could deal with social issues not through being "hard on crime" but through being hard on the root causes of crime!
Every time we execute a gang member, it's because we failed him, and we did so deeply and systematically since before he was born. We are executing ourselves, trying to wash away our failures with the blood of the condemned.
And when we execute a sociopath? Someone who has no regards to human life, or something of that sort? That too is our failure: failure to socialize another human into society, failure to provide the services he needed as a child to become a productive member of our polis. We could have identified his problems and gotten him medical treatment, right up until the end, or if somehow he couldn't ever been put back into our community, at least kept him warm and safe and kept him from harming others.
And we fail at that, too.
There is no justice in executions-- just the injustice that we force upon the condemned, and the injustice they do as a result. Even if you support the death penalty, you better have some damn respect for the fact that every time a man dies at our hands, we are stained with blood as penance for our inadequacies.
May all those who we murder in the name of justice rest in peace.
 
|
"Either the idea that someone could die without being allowed to seek redemption"
I believe there is a substantial length of time between when the inmate arrives in death row, and when he is executed. Religious figures are available to help the inmate through this time.
I think the death penalty is understandable, and I am not against it.
BUT, I agree that cheering for an execution is wrong and stupid.
"Every time we execute a gang member, it's because we failed him, and we did so deeply and systematically since before he was born. We are executing ourselves, trying to wash away our failures with the blood of the condemned."
This is wrong... Are some people more disadvantaged than others? Of course, and the world would be a better place if everyone wasn't so selfish, but to blame "society" on a man's decision to commit a crime that warrants the death penalty is complete BS.
You take this attitude that you support the death penalty, but then you say we as a society, "murdered" him. Do you even know what murder is?
You expect this society to take this death row guy in and support him... even after whatever heinous crime this guy committed, you expect us to support him and allow him to be a continued (for lack of a better word) burden.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
Oh yeah, I should probably edit that. I meant like, a physical/social redemption as opposed to a spiritual one, say via working and donating money to something I guess.
EDIT:
On September 09 2011 05:49 Dance. wrote:
"Every time we execute a gang member, it's because we failed him, and we did so deeply and systematically since before he was born. We are executing ourselves, trying to wash away our failures with the blood of the condemned."
This is wrong... Are some people more disadvantaged than others? Of course, and the world would be a better place if everyone wasn't so selfish, but to blame "society" on a man's decision to commit a crime that warrants the death penalty is complete BS.
I disagree here. In the specific case of gang members, most of these people are poor and disenfranchised. There's a reason you don't see rich kids making a "decision to commit a crime", because for the large part, getting involved in a gang is a non-decision.
That being said, I think we should agree to disagree here. We seem to have fundamentally differing outlooks on the nature of crime, and it probably won't get resolved easily.
|
It's also possible (but not determined) that an innocent man was executed on his watch.
It's stuff like this that really makes me uncomfortable with the death penalty. Even if that person has to spend 25 years in prison for a crime they did not commit, they will still walk out alive. The death penalty is an outdated form of punishment, it's been around forever and hasn't deterred people from murder any more than 25 years in prison has.
|
On September 09 2011 05:54 Blazinghand wrote:Oh yeah, I should probably edit that. I meant like, a physical/social redemption as opposed to a spiritual one, say via working and donating money to something I guess. EDIT: Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:49 Dance. wrote:
"Every time we execute a gang member, it's because we failed him, and we did so deeply and systematically since before he was born. We are executing ourselves, trying to wash away our failures with the blood of the condemned."
This is wrong... Are some people more disadvantaged than others? Of course, and the world would be a better place if everyone wasn't so selfish, but to blame "society" on a man's decision to commit a crime that warrants the death penalty is complete BS. I disagree here. In the specific case of gang members, most of these people are poor and disenfranchised. There's a reason you don't see rich kids making a "decision to commit a crime", because for the large part, getting involved in a gang is a non-decision. That being said, I think we should agree to disagree here. We seem to have fundamentally differing outlooks on the nature of crime, and it probably won't get resolved easily.
Umm, i definitely remember several cases of "rich kids making a 'decision to commit a crime'." .
Also, how could anyone have the time or capacity to seek social redemption after whatever he did?
|
While I agree on your stance about the death penelty, I think you are putting too much on society when you say its societies failure and if we had done better he would not do this blah blah blah. Some people are born that way to be pprone to violence or to get thrills when they do something horrible. Yes society can produce a killer, ie a lot of gangs in the inner city but you can't put the entire burdeon on everyone but that person.
|
I think i know why I can agree with a lot of your blog but still find it so wrong...
I feel like you are blaming the completely wrong people. It's not "society's" fault for everything. It's corrupt groups or individuals who have the power to change but don't because it doesnt benefit their interests. i'm part of society, you are as well, and we both recognize the problem; im confident that the majority of the rest do as well. But we can't make a major impact...
|
This blog exceeded my expectations. It's very easy to just lapse into demagoguery (and most do).
Firstly, I'd say that the people were not cheering Rick Perry because they 'like' the deaths of other human beings but because the death penalty is a bell-weather topic for two groups which I will explain later.
The most striking part of your blog was your reference to an idea first put forth by Socrates/Plato: that moral virtue is the result of education. Obviously, noone would do what is against their best interest, so if they do what is against their best interest, it must be a mistake in judgement. The question though is what sort of education is this? Is this the sort that can be learned in school? I think not. Can a person once miseducated in youth re-educate themseves? The answer is probably yes and no. Either way, I don't think there is ever a guarantee of success. There is some element in each person that makes the final decision.
You continue on to make, what are in my eyes, rather disturbing comments that boil down to "If only the government would...". I hope you don't think I'm being glib when I say that it boggles me when people (overzealously) praise the virtues of freedom (the movie V for Vendetta comes to mind) and then in a political context rush to heap more and more power in the hands of a centralized government. The implication, of course, is that the government is going to 'help' you.
As much as I would, I don't think the recent revulsion towards the death penalty is a result of love for your fellow man, but a trend towards a culture that rejects values of any sort. Add in a healthy dose of relativism that tells you you're not allowed to judge anything and it's no wonder most people don't feel comfortable making the ultimate judgement. It's much easier to just say you hate the death penalty and everyone who does is horrible than to wrestle with a complicated issue.
As a side note, I find myself often defending positions I do not necessarily fully agree with. For instance, it's often incumbent on me to defend Republicans a) to find balance b) to make sure that equal or worse positions do not go wholly unchallenged, even though I could make a huge blog about problems I have with their platforms. Likewise, I could imagine a scenario in which I would have no problem with the abolishment of the death penalty in a culture based on mercy and love....but not like this.
|
That's a failure of us as a society. If only we had worked harder, provided better, created a just world where everyone had the opportunity to make something of themselves, maybe he'd have gotten a job and a normal life. Maybe he wouldn't have grown up a ghetto full of drug dealers and drug addicts. Maybe he would have gone to a good school and learned to play the violin and became a famous musician.
We as society are not at fault for the dumb decisions people make. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why something is morally wrong or reprehensible. The onus is not on us (with the exception of enforcing the law) to create a better environment for these high risk kids when common sense dictates what happens when poor decisions are made. It doesn't take a society to mold a child into a productive member of society, it takes good parents / mentors.
To me it seems that the Texas people have chosen to utilize this method of punishment because they see it fit for certain criminals. That's their right to do so. Obviously I'd like to see the standards raised for an execution to be ordered. Killing someone who is innocent is absolutely unacceptable from a state's standpoint.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:23 Jerubaal wrote:
You continue on to make, what are in my eyes, rather disturbing comments that boil down to "If only the government would...". I hope you don't think I'm being glib when I say that it boggles me when people (overzealously) praise the virtues of freedom (the movie V for Vendetta comes to mind) and then in a political context rush to heap more and more power in the hands of a centralized government. The implication, of course, is that the government is going to 'help' you.
You make several good points here. I'd like to add context to your quotation of me, though.
On September 09 2011 05:41 Blazinghand wrote:
If only we had a better government that, even granted that he grew up in a bad community, was able to provide jobs and poverty relief to people in there! If only we could deal with social issues not through being "hard on crime" but through being hard on the root causes of crime!
I'm talking about a reduction of police state here, reducing the size and and refocusing scope of the government, not increasing it. We already spend far too much money on SWAT teams and unnecessary police raids as it is.
The war and crime and the war on drugs are massive expansions of government power and violence against its citizens.
|
On September 09 2011 06:34 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:23 Jerubaal wrote:
You continue on to make, what are in my eyes, rather disturbing comments that boil down to "If only the government would...". I hope you don't think I'm being glib when I say that it boggles me when people (overzealously) praise the virtues of freedom (the movie V for Vendetta comes to mind) and then in a political context rush to heap more and more power in the hands of a centralized government. The implication, of course, is that the government is going to 'help' you.
You make several good points here. I'd like to add context to your quotation of me, though. Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 05:41 Blazinghand wrote:
If only we had a better government that, even granted that he grew up in a bad community, was able to provide jobs and poverty relief to people in there! If only we could deal with social issues not through being "hard on crime" but through being hard on the root causes of crime!
I'm talking about a reduction of police state here, reducing the size and and refocusing scope of the government, not increasing it. We already spend far too much money on SWAT teams and unnecessary police raids as it is. The war and crime and the war on drugs are massive expansions of government power and violence against its citizens.
So you're for decriminalizing drugs and allowing them to run rampant in all of our society? I hope you realize the problems that this will cause.
The Swiss gave this a whirl, and ended up not liking it so much because of the amount of users that were completely #*$#ed up in public, committed crimes, harassed people, panhandled aggressively, etc. Eventually there was a referendum pushed through that revoked all of these changes and sent them back to square one. This won't work here either with violent cartels south of the border hell bent on eliminating anyone who stands in their way. Unless you want to walk through the streets of NYC, Miami, or any city in California and be relentlessly harassed, then I wouldn't advise implementing this at all.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On September 09 2011 06:46 Pillage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:34 Blazinghand wrote:On September 09 2011 06:23 Jerubaal wrote:
You continue on to make, what are in my eyes, rather disturbing comments that boil down to "If only the government would...". I hope you don't think I'm being glib when I say that it boggles me when people (overzealously) praise the virtues of freedom (the movie V for Vendetta comes to mind) and then in a political context rush to heap more and more power in the hands of a centralized government. The implication, of course, is that the government is going to 'help' you.
You make several good points here. I'd like to add context to your quotation of me, though. On September 09 2011 05:41 Blazinghand wrote:
If only we had a better government that, even granted that he grew up in a bad community, was able to provide jobs and poverty relief to people in there! If only we could deal with social issues not through being "hard on crime" but through being hard on the root causes of crime!
I'm talking about a reduction of police state here, reducing the size and and refocusing scope of the government, not increasing it. We already spend far too much money on SWAT teams and unnecessary police raids as it is. The war and crime and the war on drugs are massive expansions of government power and violence against its citizens. So you're for decriminalizing drugs and allowing them to run rampant in all of our society? I hope you realize the problems that this will cause. The Swiss gave this a whirl, and ended up not liking it so much because of the amount of users that were completely #*$#ed up in public, committed crimes, harassed people, panhandled aggressively, etc. Eventually there was a referendum pushed through that revoked all of these changes and sent them back to square one. This won't work here either with violent cartels south of the border hell bent on eliminating anyone who stands in their way. Unless you want to walk through the streets of NYC, Miami, or any city in California and be relentlessly harassed, then I wouldn't advise implementing this at all.
WHAT? NO!
EDIT:
Okay sorry I need to give more information here. There's a difference between NOT having a SWAT team in every tiny no-name town with automatic weapons and breaking down small-time marijuana dealer's doors in full raid gear and shooting elderly people and dogs and making every drug legal!.
There is a way to address the drug problem from the DEMAND side, through education and helping people out and getting treatment for addicts.
There's a middle ground between "all drugs are legal" and "more police, more guns, less civil liberties"
Sorry for the initial response I was just mad.
EDIT EDIT: Also I never said drugs should be made legal, and I'm kind of annoyed you would just pull that out of the air. You are aware that before the "war on crime" and "war on drugs", that both crime and drugs were illegal?
|
I find it interesting that it is the very religeon heavy states that both endorse the death penalty, but are also pro-life (as in anti-abortion). That life itself is a sacred thing that only God can give and take away, seems to make this a contradiction.
I'm not religeous however, though I am against the death penalty for the following reason. I absolutely don't believe in an eye for an eye. If you punch me, I don't want to punch you back as some kind of justice, because that makes me a worse human being.
I have no interest in revenge against people who have wronged me because their suffering will never make me feel any happier. Also, I don't want people who break the law to "pay" for their sins by suffering themselves because this can be cathartic to them. I want them to be re-educated so that when they look back on their crimes they don't feel as though they have paid their debt. Everyone must live with their guilt, but they must know it first in order to do so.
Dangerous people must be held captive for the protection of the general population, but criminals who do not pose a direct risk to us must not be kept prisoner. To keep people in prison is another way to steal someone's life away, and that makes us worse people. Also, prison does not educate criminals into decent citizens and there are many other ways they can be punished which are less expensive and more effective than incarceration.
Something is very wrong with the criminal justice system in both the US and the UK because it stems mostly from history and politics and not from a point of view derived from academic research or morality.
|
NOTE: These are not my opinions for/against the topics involved:
Look at it this way:
- Some argue for the death penalty because they think that there are crimes so despicable that the offender simply does not deserve to live after doing them.
- Some argue against the death penalty because of injustices associated with it (i.e. what if it was later proven that the accused was innocent and he was dead, you can't just ressurect him and apologise) and the belief that it is immoral to take somebody's life no matter what the circumstances.
- Some argue for life imprisonment because they feel serious criminals deserve to rot in a prison cell.
- Some argue against life imprisonment because it is cheaper to execute somebody than to keep them imprisoned, plus because of the jail overcapacity seen in the modern day.
|
Apologies, you kind of jumped straight from a saying we have a bloated police force / gov't to talking about the war on drugs being "bad" per say. I connected the dots wrong there, considering some of the things I read on this website -_- . So... sorry, again.
How do propose we go about educating people about drugs then? Through the DARE program that's taught in schools? IMO it is relatively ineffective as it doesn't replace the influence parents have over their children. Let's face it, most druggies start when they're young and consume more and more dangerous things as they grow older. I just don't see it preforming effectively in this field.
Rehabilitation: I'd love to see the government pull a rabbit out of its hat and managed to help insurance companies subsidize this somehow for welfare citizens that meet stringent guidelines for treatment. Government could also confide in some negotiating with said insurance companies to help pay for rehab for people on private plans. Meaning, cutting business restrictions for meeting certain goals for starting x people on a rehab program. Regrettably my brain tells me this won't happen, because there is far too much bickering currently.
You are aware that before the "war on crime" and "war on drugs", that both crime and drugs were illegal?
Of course. But eventually these activities reach certain thresholds which make the citizens very angry and then the politicians do what they do best: pander, which results in these actions being taken.
It is also insanely hard to stop drugs from coming in from the south as Mexico's government is crazy corrupt and the cartels pretty much can do whatever they want. Combined the the porous border security, they can ship in all the drugs, high powered weapons, and dealers they want to, overwhelming our civilian police force.
An issue I have with dumping government money into rehab programs is the fact that at the end of the day, it is strictly up to the individual to change his / herself. I am fearful of the amount of money that could be wasted, because the public's control is limited in the issue, and that all of the final power rests with the addict.
|
Now to try and get back on topic I'd like to reiterate what I wrote before.
To me it seems that the Texas people have chosen to utilize this method of punishment because they see it fit for certain criminals. That's their right to do so.
This has been a fundamental state right for many years now, deciding on whether or not to include the death penalty. I think it's important to recognize that different people in a country as large as ours want different things, and the Tenth amendment allows states to fulfill that desire quite well along the lines of highly controversial issues.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On September 09 2011 07:57 Pillage wrote:Now to try and get back on topic I'd like to reiterate what I wrote before. Show nested quote +To me it seems that the Texas people have chosen to utilize this method of punishment because they see it fit for certain criminals. That's their right to do so. This has been a fundamental state right for many years now, deciding on whether or not to include the death penalty. I think it's important to recognize that different people in a country as large as ours want different things, and the Tenth amendment allows states to fulfill that desire quite well along the lines of highly controversial issues.
I think that's a good point. Given the large population and geographic size of the US, there's naturally going to be a diversity of laws between states, and that's good.
I think the point I've been trying to get at is that, assuming you are pro-death-penalty, there should be a certain level of solemnity and sadness surrounding it. It's not good to execute someone. It might be the least bad option, but I don't believe it's ever a good option.
|
Just to add to the OP, the President is only allowed to have two terms in office that may be non-consecutive.
I will be reading the rest of this later. It looks like a great write-up.
|
I think the point I've been trying to get at is that, assuming you are pro-death-penalty, there should be a certain level of solemnity and sadness surrounding it. It's not good to execute someone. It might be the least bad option, but I don't believe it's ever a good option.
I can respect this viewpoint. I understand how hearing the audience clap for Perry regarding executions during the recent debate can irk some nerves. I can concede that we should not be applauding when these actions occur, as they are ugly, but that's a social issue a group of people have made a decision on, so that's how it is for the time being.
However as a disclaimer, whenever we nab/kill one of those Al-Qaida bastards, I fist pump like an idiot from Jersey Shore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
