Death Penalty
I just got asked how I feel about the Death Penalty... I thought I'd share the quickie response I just typed out, and see what comes back from all of you. (I'm sorry it's not better drafted and formatted) I invite open and intellectual responses from any of you. =)
It being literally a life-or-death matter, and with my experience in life-and-death, as well as dealing with cons, I don't find it easy to give a monosyllabic answer. In fact, I have been studying the topic as part of a book I may write at some point in the far future. I am a nurse, I once spent some time teaching Sunday School at a prison, and I was once trained to kill as a soldier. Life and death, as well as the issues facing a con in prison, are much more real to me than they are to most people.
Essentially? I am strongly pro-DP, with caveats. The trial process must be rigorous. The conviction must be sound. We don't want to execute the wrong guy for the wrong thing. And I believe that the DP can be a deterrent against murder, if it is handled properly and quickly. Sentence a person, give him one year before it is carried out.
The lengthy appeals process before execution is considered by some to be "cruel and unusual". I'm inclined to agree. I don't feel a ton of sympathy for anyone who murders his own children with a steak knife, but I'd rather we get things over with.
I also think that consideration needs to be made for the circumstances in every case. If the killing wasn't intentional. If the killing wasn't premeditated. If it was purely a crime of passion? Are there any extenuating circumstances at all, that would possess an average citizen to feel the same way, given the same circumstances?
Next, I believe that the trials process is tainted at best, corrupt at worst. Jury selection, to get the stupidest idiots you can, is a big business. The rules of evidence, allowing the attorneys to throw out all sorts of things, are asinine. I say let the Jury view ALL of the material, and reach the truth based upon the clearest picture they can get.
But at the same time, I believe the death penalty should be used much more often. I believe that NOT allowing the DP as an option in every murder case (and in every state) is at least as stupid as requiring it for every case. I believe that cons should not be allowed umpteen ridiculous appeals like, "Your Honor, I had a cold the day I was supposed to testify on my own behalf," or something equally asinine.
Going back the other direction, if we DO execute the wrong guy, the state should be required to pay reparations to the family and friends of the deceased. And a critical malpractice investigation should be opened up to find out why this happened. It's just like surgery... surgeon takes off the wrong arm, and he deserves to pay. The state kills the wrong guy, and it deserves to pay. That's all there is to it. Until now, the view has been held that the state should not be held responsible for things it does wrongly and poorly in the process of Law Enforcement. Which is why there is so much free corruption in Law Enforcement.
So, in conclusion, I'm strongly pro-Death Penalty. I won't give a simple answer, because I find value in some of the arguments made against the Death Penalty. But at the same time, those arguments are a basis upon which we can better the way in which we carry it out. And if we do carry out the entire process properly, start-to-finish, then we can also appease half of the objectors out there. The great argument always is, "What if you get the wrong guy?"
Otherwise, there are some who believe the DP is immoral and wrong on its own basis. I disagree. You can forgive a person, whether they die or not. If they go free, after serving some years, you are turning a rabid dog loose on the population. If they get Life, then they are sapping the resources of the body politic, just like a cancer does with the human body.
Killing someone can be a personal matter (like murder), or it can be an administrative one. We kill people every day in other ways, throughout the nation, and outside the nation, through means that are accepted and consistent. I think a Murder convict deserves death more than an unborn (untried) fetus, more than some elderly persons eking out the last days of their lives in a nursing home, more than some of the people (Germans, Japanese, Italians, etc.) we rightly killed in WW1 and WW2, and more than pretty much anyone else. I believe the State has the right and moral responsibility to execute murderers for the good of us all. As long as, it is done correctly.
It being literally a life-or-death matter, and with my experience in life-and-death, as well as dealing with cons, I don't find it easy to give a monosyllabic answer. In fact, I have been studying the topic as part of a book I may write at some point in the far future. I am a nurse, I once spent some time teaching Sunday School at a prison, and I was once trained to kill as a soldier. Life and death, as well as the issues facing a con in prison, are much more real to me than they are to most people.
Essentially? I am strongly pro-DP, with caveats. The trial process must be rigorous. The conviction must be sound. We don't want to execute the wrong guy for the wrong thing. And I believe that the DP can be a deterrent against murder, if it is handled properly and quickly. Sentence a person, give him one year before it is carried out.
The lengthy appeals process before execution is considered by some to be "cruel and unusual". I'm inclined to agree. I don't feel a ton of sympathy for anyone who murders his own children with a steak knife, but I'd rather we get things over with.
I also think that consideration needs to be made for the circumstances in every case. If the killing wasn't intentional. If the killing wasn't premeditated. If it was purely a crime of passion? Are there any extenuating circumstances at all, that would possess an average citizen to feel the same way, given the same circumstances?
Next, I believe that the trials process is tainted at best, corrupt at worst. Jury selection, to get the stupidest idiots you can, is a big business. The rules of evidence, allowing the attorneys to throw out all sorts of things, are asinine. I say let the Jury view ALL of the material, and reach the truth based upon the clearest picture they can get.
But at the same time, I believe the death penalty should be used much more often. I believe that NOT allowing the DP as an option in every murder case (and in every state) is at least as stupid as requiring it for every case. I believe that cons should not be allowed umpteen ridiculous appeals like, "Your Honor, I had a cold the day I was supposed to testify on my own behalf," or something equally asinine.
Going back the other direction, if we DO execute the wrong guy, the state should be required to pay reparations to the family and friends of the deceased. And a critical malpractice investigation should be opened up to find out why this happened. It's just like surgery... surgeon takes off the wrong arm, and he deserves to pay. The state kills the wrong guy, and it deserves to pay. That's all there is to it. Until now, the view has been held that the state should not be held responsible for things it does wrongly and poorly in the process of Law Enforcement. Which is why there is so much free corruption in Law Enforcement.
So, in conclusion, I'm strongly pro-Death Penalty. I won't give a simple answer, because I find value in some of the arguments made against the Death Penalty. But at the same time, those arguments are a basis upon which we can better the way in which we carry it out. And if we do carry out the entire process properly, start-to-finish, then we can also appease half of the objectors out there. The great argument always is, "What if you get the wrong guy?"
Otherwise, there are some who believe the DP is immoral and wrong on its own basis. I disagree. You can forgive a person, whether they die or not. If they go free, after serving some years, you are turning a rabid dog loose on the population. If they get Life, then they are sapping the resources of the body politic, just like a cancer does with the human body.
Killing someone can be a personal matter (like murder), or it can be an administrative one. We kill people every day in other ways, throughout the nation, and outside the nation, through means that are accepted and consistent. I think a Murder convict deserves death more than an unborn (untried) fetus, more than some elderly persons eking out the last days of their lives in a nursing home, more than some of the people (Germans, Japanese, Italians, etc.) we rightly killed in WW1 and WW2, and more than pretty much anyone else. I believe the State has the right and moral responsibility to execute murderers for the good of us all. As long as, it is done correctly.