Various notes, day 736

[blueskyesmiling]

It seems so strange for time to be passing so quickly and yet so slowly all at once. It's funny how this little attempt to document the things going on around me--as if I might control my days by writing each thing down--has slipped into something comfortable, comforting

Comments

[nosugar_nomilk]

Next time, feel free to speak up. I'm always ready for a little friendly discussion about the law, if that's what interests you.

As for the coffee, what can I say? I've proven that I can be trusted with hot liquids in the vicinity of important things.

I hope to talk to you again soon.

[blueskyesmiling]

Thank you. I am interested to hear what you think of Soph T. Hart's paper on the overapplication of the death penalty. Did you read it? It was in the Lus Law Journal. Perhaps we can discuss it sometime soon.

[nosugar_nomilk]

Yes, that's a topic of great interest to me. I did read the article in question, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. It'll be a pleasure to converse with someone who can competently discuss legal matters.

And if you'd like some coffee, I'd be happy to share. I have some that's quite a bit better than anything you'll find in the cafeteria or at the commissary.

[blueskyesmiling]

Ms. Hart's insistence that it is an "unfair" or cruel and unusual punishment seemed flawed to me. That was based too much on emotion. Her reasoning that execution strips away due process also held no water for me--we do give the opportunity for appeals, and how many times should we prove a party guilty? However, I do agree with her assertion that given the possibility for human error, our current frequent application of capital punishment should be reevaluated. She puts forth that the sentence is often arbitrary and dependent on the judge, and I don't disagree with this. Perhaps it's time for clarification as to when a crime is heinous enough to warrant the taking of a life

[nosugar_nomilk]

Now, this is the kind of discussion I'm interested in.

I myself am in full agreement with Ms. Hart. It is inhumane. There's never an excuse for murder. All murder is reprehensible, but a killing carried out by the State is even more so than one which is the act of an individual.

If there is as much as a shadow of a chance that the State can be mistaken--and, as you say, there is--then it is, quite simply, an insupportable practice. It's vengeful and discriminatory, and I believe that everyone has the right to live.

Also, I disagree: it's no mere thought exercise. We can no longer practice, yes, but any citizen can affect the law, and knowledge always has power. That can't be changed.

Although--perhaps I can change your mind about coffee. It's a shame I no longer have my own personal blends, but I'll see what I can do.

[blueskyesmiling]

You are certainly a defense lawyer at heart, Mr. Armando

[nosugar_nomilk]

Ah, I do enjoy a good debate.

I'll always be a defense attorney at heart. I'm proud to say that I lost every case I brought to trial as a prosecutor, because the people I was prosecuting were innocent, and justice was done.

Vengeful, yes. I side with those who consider capital punishment an act of revenge and not justice. What other reason is there to kill a prisoner? None, especially not when life imprisonment demonstrably costs less than execution. Perhaps you could bring up overcrowding, but the thought of using overcrowding as a reason to kill someone makes my stomach turn more than curdled milk in sour coffee.

If a man is wrongfully imprisoned, you can set him free. Yes, he'll have lost years of his life, but he'll be alive. A man can't be released from death.

I do see the appeal in revenge. There have been people I've wanted to see die because of what they've done. But I think the real "emotional argument" in this case is the one for capital punishment. You don't think it's murder to knowingly poison someone, for

[blueskyesmiling]

I do believe you are seeing this through the filter of your own experiences and emotions. It's only those inflamed with emotion that distort the cold mechanisms of the law. The law can't seek revenge--it has no anger, no hate, no outrage. It only has the limits for what is acceptable behavior in our society, and what isn't.

For society to function there must be rules, and for the rules to function there must be consequences for breaking the rules. The consequence must equal the weight of the action, or there will be no fear of taking that action. I realize some claim that the death penalty is not a proven deterrent, but I ask them to prove that it isn't. How can we know what crimes aren't being committed? Whereas I have heard foreign nationals say they are unafraid to commit crimes in our country because they find our prison system so non-threatening. (But perhaps anecdotal evidence is not worth giving too much weight. Forgive my slip--I'm a bit rusty

[nosugar_nomilk]

It's true, I saw the issue emotionally once, but that was when I was blinded by anger. When I felt that anger, I might well have agreed with you.

Where the issue of deterrence is concerned, I think you have only to compare crime rates in places that execute prisoners with those of places that don't. It might not be a perfect measurement, but it's good enough.

Most people who are about to commit a terrible crime, for whatever reason, aren't in any condition to stop and consider the death penalty.

So we must murder killers? Why not then steal from thieves? No, that's not how the law should work. I think a lifetime of imprisonment is a harsh enough penalty. The punishment should fit the crime. Those who have committed the worst crimes should lose all hope of freedom.

You call the law impartial, but the law is not. It is made by people, for people. Look at certain laws of the past, which today we consider to be unjust: there you can see the prejudices of the times.

Impartial is what the law aspires to be, not what it is,

[blueskyesmiling]

I have done further research to consider your point regarding deterrence. Curiously, the statistics seem ambiguous at best, unfortunately, and open to being interpreted however your opinion falls.

Please keep in mind, I'm not advocating the simplistic "eye for an eye" approach. In fact, I do agree that we've started leaning too close to that type of approach, which I consider dangerous.

Impartial is what the law aspires to be, not what it is, and we must struggle always towards that ideal.

Precisely. You and I are not in disagreement on this point.

There are people I think the world would be better off without, but I can't be trusted to make that choice. No one can.

You might also argue that no one can be truly trusted to run a nation, but someone must do it.

Certainly our discussion has given me much to consider. More evidence as to why this debate has raged on for years, no doubt.

[nosugar_nomilk]

It's true, statistics are notoriously deceitful. As they say, there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics". I concede your point.

Even if it is a deterrent, I'm not sure whether that means it should be practiced, because last I heard, there are other ways to deter crime, and maybe we should focus more on the ones that don't end in someone dying.

It's a little disingenuous to bring up running a country, because a country must be run, but prisoners don't have to be executed. Look at all the nations without capital punishment that are doing just fine

[blueskyesmiling]

Would you like to join mefor breakfast tomorrow so we can continue this discussion face to face? Or debate another topic, if you prefer.

[nosugar_nomilk]

I would like that very much. I'll see you then.