Various notes, day 736
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
( Read more... )
Calling it murder loads the issue emotionally, which I protest. "Vengeful," really? It's only as vengeful as any demand for justice. Certainly it can become vengeful in the hands of an unworthy judge. There are those men and women on the bench that fall under that category. But better that we deal with those people than eliminate an effective and ultimately, just punishment for the most egregious crimes.
What of the man that spends thirty years of his life in prison for a crime he didn't commit? Do you also propose we eliminate jail time as punishment because the shadow of human error looms? Would not stricter regulation and a review of our procedures/policies so that fewer errors occur better serve the people?
Human life is precious, but would you not rather remove one human life that has taken many and may take more if given the chance--lives of other prisoners, if he is bound to prison for the duration of his lifespan, or lives of innocents, if he is eventually paroled?
I'm certainly happy to give your coffee a chance. I've heard great things about your custom blends.
Reply
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 instance? I do, no matter how it's done. Calling it anything else clouds the truth of the matter. It's cold and calculated murder.
True, a dangerous prisoner may get parole and be released, but isn't that a failure of the parole system? Though admittedly related, I think that's essentially a separate issue. The same goes for deaths in prison--I don't disagree that prison reform is needed.
As for the coffee, the blends I currently have on hand aren't exactly the finest I could serve you, but maybe one day, when I have everything I need, I'll be able to make you a proper cup. Until then, the alternatives aren't bad.
Reply
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.)
The one area which this logic may fail is that the truly dangerous criminal--the mentally-distorted psychopath who can't be rehabilitated--may have no fear of the consequence. But even so, I hold that the deterrent effect works on those who are not so disturbed and might wish to follow in the footsteps of the deranged individual.
Yes, we should honor the weight of such a punishment and invoke it only in the gravest cases. In this I agree with Ms. Hart, and perhaps, yourself. But I don't agree that we should do away with it entirely.
Do you care for tea? I've been able to keep a little in my cell which is reasonable.
Reply
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, and we must struggle always towards that ideal. Flawed and human as we are, we might never reach it, but we must change and move forward as wisdom and compassion demand.
If we look to the rest of the world, we can see that so many other nations have done away with capital punishment. Perhaps that should tell us something.
But I do respect your opinion and the logic behind it. I can see why you feel as you do. 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.
Tea? I never drink tea when I could drink coffee. That's my rule.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
In the case of the death penalty, one man--the judge--decides whether a prisoner lives or dies. That's an entirely different matter.
I didn't think you were espousing the old "eye for an eye" argument, as you seem much too reasonable for that. I was simply referring to your statement "the consequence must equal the action" and pointing out that there are other punishments that can equal murder. I do enjoy my rhetoric.
Yes, thank you for the discussion. I found it rather refreshing. You've given me a lot to think about, too. Maybe we can talk about it some more over coffee--or tea, in your case.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment