The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: antioch on December 10, 2005, 05:15:48 pm
-
He co-founded the Crips in the 70s, was convicted of murder in 1981, and has been on death row for 20 years. In that time, he's written many books urging youth against violence and been nominated for 5 nobel peace prizes. His potential execution has really touched me and spurred me to action against the death penalty. What do you all think about the case, the man, or the issues the whole thing has brought up?
-
I don't think he should. Then again, I am opposed to the death penalty in any case. However, I don't know whether special treatment should be given to those who change their ways while on death row. But again, no he shouldn't be executed; no one should.
-
I accidentally voted for 'yes,' when I really meant to vote for 'no' - who sucks? Me. I do.
I am opposed to the death penalty.
-
I voted "no," because I'm opposed to the death penalty in general.
I don't know how to feel about the issue of "do we consider clemency based on a death row inmate's actions in prison?" On one hand, if we assume that the criminals are actually guilty and that the crimes they have committed are so heinous that death is the only possible appropriate punishment, then no amount of good work is going to ameliorate that. On the other hand, it doesn't quite work with either of the alleged goals of the penal system: if the penal system is supposed to provide retribution to the victims and society, killing someone who has reformed doesn't strike me as particularly satisfying societal retribution, and if the penal system is supposed to provide opportunities for rehabilitation, than killing a reformed inmate seems counter to that goal. It's difficult to say.
I think this all highlights one of the major problems with capital punishment in this country: due to the number of appeals necesary to ensure that capital punishment is enacted fairly and only on the guilty, death row inmates stay in prison for years or decades and often have such opportunities to reform. It doesn't quite jibe with the alleged image of "swift retribution and deterrence" that's why we supposedly keep the death penalty around.
(Just to clarify: yes, the appeals system should be there. While I find state executions morally questionable in any case, state execution without the best possible safeguards against executing the innocent is reprehensible. I'm just saying that this necessary safeguarding takes away from a lot of the alleged deterrent/retribution effect of the death penalty and creates a lot of moral questions like this.)
-
I'm against the death penalty, but not "in general." Innocents getting executed, guilty but rich going free, the judicial system is seriously fucked up. On the other hand, someone that has murdered 5 people really needs to be put out of societys misery.
~Paul
-
I think there are surely people who deserve to die. But I don't think there's anyone who I'd trust to decide who those people are.
-
I can see where Asherdan is coming from and harsher sentences for repeat offenders definitely makese sense but I'm just not down with taking away something we can't give back, what with humanity being innately flawed and all.
There again I'm in a country without the Death Penalty (in fact there was a big hoohaw lately because an Australian drug runner who got picked up in Singapore was hanged, it was actually cool to see how many people were against the death penalty over here but then of course the people who supported it had no reason to speak up so it's going to be a bit biased) so thats going to influence me.
I think the role of a prison system has to be reform even if, as Asherdan says, you can't force it to happen. If the prison system only exists for retribution or to contain the unwanted elements of our society then we may as well just execute or exile every criminal. We don't want people who steal or murder or such in our society but the fact that we have limited prison sentences acknowledges that people mess up and that people are capable of change.
-
hmm.
Yeah, not a big death penalty fan. As far as I'm concerned, only I have the moral authority to decide who lives and who dies.
What i mean is, I might personally kill someone. In self defense, or revenge, whatever. I am a human being. I have emotions, and these emotions are not logical. I'm not going to pretend that I'm some gandhi-like figure who never gets mad.
However, the government does not have these emotions. the government can't get mad and kill someone. so, why would we want it to be?
Edit: the roman empire did not have the death penalty for citizens. they considered it their purpose to protect citizens-- they would do horrible things to non-romans, but the worst they could do to citizens was banish them.
except for the catalinian conspiracy, where someone (cato maybe?) convinced the senate that it was a special case, and they executed a bunch of guys. to make an example.
-
...in fact there was a big hoohaw lately because an Australian drug runner who got picked up in Singapore was hanged, it was actually cool to see how many people were against the death penalty over here but then of course the people who supported it had no reason to speak up so it's going to be a bit biased...
Speaking of...
I was following this a bit, and I was absolutely horrified. I believe that federal law in the US allows for execution in certain drug cases (probably big drug lords and stuff), but it never happens. Given that this guy did have a lot of heroin, he was still only a runner, and so young.
-
Yeah he was, there's been an odd amount of drug runner related sympathy in this country lately, the last one was a girl who got 20 years in indonesia because she got caught with a body board bag full of weed.
And while I disagree with the laws in Singapore I can understand their rationale for having them and based on that reasoning can understand why they were never ever in a million years going to make an exception in this case and let the dude serve a life sentence in an australian jail. I just don't have to like it.
Edit: Oh and as I understand it it he didn't really have 'a lot' of heroin, I think it was less than a kilogram though I can't find a news article on it right now. As I understand it in singapore if you've got enough to be consider a smuggler or a dealer or whatever you're dead and that's it, it's not that what he was doing was a particularly heinous example of drug smuggling it's that he was doing it at all (someone correct me if I've just caused a war here).
-
He was convicted three years ago of carrying nearly 400g (14 ounces) of heroin at Singapore airport while travelling from Cambodia to Australia.
I read somewhere the street value was just under US $1,000,000.
-
If Tookie was sentenced to die as punishment for what he did, he should die. The punishment was levied as a consequence of something he already did, an unreversable crime.
Clemency based on works achieved while in prison is a great idea and I'm all for convicts trying to change their ways/Make A Difference/etc. but if a Death Row inmate can seriously "work off" a death sentence, what's to say that we haven't already executed people who would have, eventually, done the same kinds of things Tookie did to get this consideration?
Therefore, we should keep all death row inmates alive indefinitely on the off-chance that they may one day redeem themselves through hard work and good deeds.
-
The 'nominated for a Nobel Prize' argument is spurious. Don't fall into that trap. ALMOST ANYONE can nominate ANYONE. It's like the Pulitzer Prize. And "Tookie" has zero chance of winning it.
Each year there are 100 to 250 nominees for each prize. Although anyone can be nominated, not everyone can nominate someone for a Nobel Prize. For example the website of the Nobel Foundation says that in the case of the peace prize the following people may nominate:
Members of national assemblies and governments of states
Members of international courts
University rectors
Professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology
Directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes
Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Board members of organisations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute
The bolded is a rather large and heavily liberal group of individuals who have a tendency to politicize everything including, in this case, the Nobel Peace Prize.
I indicated support for his execution. He's a murderer who has never taken responsibility for or shown remorse for his actions, and his clemeny application contains what are probably intentional 'factual inaccuracies' such as "I was convicted by an all-white jury" (racially charged AND false). If the people of California want to be rid of execution, have your lawmakers make it so. There is a process for this.
Asherdan speaks the truth. Society has, basically two methods of crime prevention from the standpoint of dealing with criminals who have been incarcerated: Rehabilitation or Deterrence. We don't demand restitution very often.
We have yet to find an Constitutionally appropriate method of highly effective rehabilitation. On the other hand, execution holds a small possibilty of deterrence for all but one criminal - for the executed, it's 100% but that 100% is also served by life imprisonment.
Repeat sex offenders, offenders against children, and people who kill with intention and malice should be executed because it's clear from experience that these are people who can't contribute to society more than they take away, and warehousing them doesn't hold value. I would give them one opportunity to commit suicide before executing them.
Life imprisonment is expensive. I think if we made prison difficult, uncomfortable and even painful you might see fewer people going there (or maybe fewer returning). I also think that more rich people need to serve meaningful hard time for white collar crimes.
-
I think if we made prison difficult, uncomfortable and even painful you might see fewer people going there (or maybe fewer returning).
Prison is EXTREMELY painful, difficult and uncomfortable already. Maybe not for gang-lords, but that's just because they already have a hierarchy and support system set up outside of the prison, which follows them inside. This is why gangs flourish within prisons- it's a way to make sure YOU'RE not the bitch. I can't, of course, provide the actual studies (I'm funny that way!), but I seem to recall there being a study which showed that the number of gang members LEAVING prison was much, much higher than the number of gang members ENTERING prison. I would posit that making our prisons more difficult, uncomfortable or painful would be...well, first off, you'd have riots. Many, many riots. And then, eventually, the really bad fuckers would figure out ways to circumvent these new rules or regulations or spikes which randomly fly out of walls or whatever. Most likely, the way they would circumvent these new difficulties is by making life more difficult for the unaffilliated prisoner. Thus, it becomes even more important to join a prison gang as soon as possible.
And it starts all over again!
-
My point was that after the first time in prison, the person is probably going to be in a prison gang which is either a subset of a much larger criminal network or an affiliate. So that, when they go back in, they'll be affiliated with someone. I think what you're saying re: recidivism does not contradict my point.
-
BTW: Tookie was unable to name the victems of the crime he has been convicted of when asked in interview today.
Real remorsefull, 'eh?
Doesn't he deny committing the crimes? If so, isn't that a bit unfair?
Edit: Yes I realize that "they all" deny it, but say that he really didn't commit those crimes. The justice system may do a decent job of establishing truth, but it's far from perfect.
-
anybody paying attention to the Cory Maye case?
he didn't start a gang, he's a dad who shot a police officer
after the police accidentally enterred his home instead of
the other half of the duplex he lived in.
-
I'm bummed about this. I can't think of any deflation that's going to make the world we live in seem any good.
-
anybody paying attention to the Cory Maye case?
he didn't start a gang, he's a dad who shot a police officer
after the police accidentally enterred his home instead of
the other half of the duplex he lived in.
Yeah, this is extremely heinous. He shot somebody in what sure seemed to him like the home-invasion scenario the NRA is so fond of pimping, and now he's on death row.
http://crookedtimber.org/2005/12/12/knock-knock-bang-bang/
-
the more i read about it,
the sadder and angrier i get.
i want the people who want to trade their liberty for safety,
to be confined to padded cells.
for their safety,
and for my own.
that crooked timber post's comments,
someone brought up the old clash song
(which a long time ago on the internet someone
kindly told me was not originally by the clash..)
"when they kick in your front door".
given the turn of events,
it's as if they simply kicked in his door and killed him,
if the conviction and the sentence stand.
except,
rather than a quick death,
that his daughter would mourn later,
(she was, 18months old?)
he will die, slowly, possibly decades on death row.
his daughter will be old enough to,
maybe, understand.
i wonder if they'll make her watch her daddy die for
trying to save her life.
i mean,
that's the crux, isn't it?
isn't that what a parent is SUPPOSED to do?
every idealized explanation of what parents are SUPPOSED to
do and be and etc,
has always been shown to me as they would gladly die
to protect their children.
middle of the night,
someone's in your house,
your 18month is laying next to you.
and the next thing you know,
you are on death row.
-
I basically conflicted about the whole idea of execution but it is a convenient way to finger hypocrits that claim to be pro-life.
-
At least on its face, the Cory Maye case sounds like a natural case for clemency at the least and possibly even pardon.
If the gun was legal and legally owned, I'd say the police officer basically suffered what amounts to an industrial accident - people die doing dangerous jobs every day - and that doesn't make life any better for the officer's family but in this case, it sounds like the officers' mistake is going to cost two lives and impact very seriously several others.
-
Damn I thought they only gave the death penalty for especially heinous crimes over there? What amounts to a (terrible) mistake and what he believed to be self defense doesn't sound like it fits the bill.
-
Generally I am anti-death penalty. Like Asherdan, I'm familiar with the criminal justice system, only from a different perspective. It just seems way too likely that we are executing non-deserving people. Not to be cliche, but I'd rather a million deserving criminals escape the death penalty than execute one innocent one.
As far as Tookie goes I can't comment. I know virtually nothing about the facts of his case and therefore I don't feel qualified to guess whether he was guilty or not.
But I do have a couple of comments:
First, this case became severly politicized. I don't know which side I agree with, if any. But I do know that when individual cases get drug into the political arena facts, logic and rationality go by the wayside. (see Schiavo, T; Simpson, O.J.) When the people who are given to power to decide life and death don't have truth as their ultimate goal, bad things happen.
Second, whether Tookie was guilty or not or whether he deserved to die or not he was unquestionably an extremely talented man. Look at the organization he created. Given a different background the guy could have been running G.E. To me it's proof positive that environment has a huge effect on our destinies. For whatever reason he used his talents in an anti-social way. It's a crying shame he couldn't have used those talents in a constructive rather than destructive way. Although I suppose it's possible that he and his writings could have a net positive effect in the long run. I hope that's true, but I'm doubtful.
-
I basically conflicted about the whole idea of execution but it is a convenient way to finger hypocrits that claim to be pro-life.
Wow, what an inflammatory bull shit statement. Unless that fetus is going to be the next Gilmore or Tookie and it's basically a pre-emptive strike.
Now that I poured gas all over & shit here's a more moderate statement of disagreement. I don't buy the comparison between ending the life of a convicted criminal who was judged and sentenced via our legal system and scraping out the pieces of what could have been, given time & a little luck, an unwanted human.
? My point was that there are a lot of people who claim to be "pro-life" when discussing abortion but who then turn around and support the death penalty. Pro-life means anti-choice, anti-execution, anti-war, and anti-euthanasia/assisted suicide. But the term has been so twisted that many people only associate it with the first one so you've got "pro-life" people who actively want adults to be killed.
-
Edited out because I was just being snarky and it's early.
ha HA... snark.
-
Keep it under control, OK?
We already did the abortion thread (http://achewood.plagiarist.com/viewtopic.php?t=1449) and it was unpleasant and I just want everyone to get along and debating abortion is pretty much the worst way to go about that. I think the point of comparison that CJ brought up is totally legitimate, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who wants this thread to stay away from that topic? Cause the death penalty is controversial enough?
Look at me, all being a moderator.
-
Look at me, all being a moderator.
Man you jest moderatin' the shit outta this thread aint'cha...
~Paul
-
See, I went and interpreted that 'pro-life' label as a single issue subject 'cause there's too much room for well reasoned disparity of opinion between the subjects on that list you threw out there for my taste.
That was the definition I learned growing up Catholic where all of those issues were seen as black and white. Although I've since learned that pro-choice organizations also use this definition but for snarky reasons.
-
I didn't get a chance to vote in the poll, but consider me a Death Penalty naysayer. Below I've compiled some quotations that explain the reason for my opposition.
From Amnesty International (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng) re: the Death Penalty:
"It has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments."
"The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: '. . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.'"
"The death penalty is discriminatory and is often used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. It is imposed and carried out arbitrarily."
"There are those who argue that imprisonment alone has not prevented individuals who have been imprisoned from offending again once set free. The answer is to review the parole procedures in place with a view to preventing relapses into crime. The answer is certainly not to increase the number of executions."
"In addition experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges."
From a PBS programme (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/etc/faqs.html) about mentally ill inmates:
"According to the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), 16 percent of the prison population can be classified as severely mentally ill, meaning that they fit the psychiatric classification for illnesses such as schizophrenia, major depression, and bipolar disorder."
"However, when other mental illnesses, such as anti-social personality disorder, borderline personality disorder and depression, are included, the numbers are much higher, and NAMI puts the number of inmates suffering from both mental illness and substance abuse the percentage at well over 50 percent."
From Death Penalty Information Center (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7) re: the costs of the Death Penalty:
"The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993)."
-
I have to severely doubt that those three sources can be considered centrist or unbiased.
I understand Cort's comment but in my opinion, I can like apples and oranges and his argument seems to be that I can't like apples and oranges. I don't think there are reasonable connection between the two thoughts; I believe that we should be a culture respectful of life and it's unlimited potential for good - and when creatures arise in our midst with no respect for life and very limited potential for good we have to deal with them in terms that are certain and absolute.
Without the threat of the death penalty people involved in crime organizations or ongoing criminal enterprises that involve murder would never cooperate with prosecutors to bring down organizations (Sammy "the Bull" and John Gotti). Serial killers or Serial child molester/murderers would not confess to crimes or tell police where the bodies are. High profile criminals have also cooperated with authorities to avoid 'the chair'.
As a deterrent, the death penalty may work (it's impossible to measure prevented crimes) but certainly as a tool for leveraging cooperation it has proved very successful.
Death is an absolute; imprisonment in the US is, as Asherdan pointed out earlier, is a lifestyle choice complete with cable and playstations and drugs and sex and zero accountability to anyone except yourself and that is disastrous. When you take someone who has spent several years in a 100% selgiraffe self-preservation environment and release them into society, you find that that individual has very limited ability to negotiate ordinary social transactions and inability to function interdependently with other people. And the only method they have any skill or experience in for resolving the inevitable conflicts that arise from these these two problems is violence.
Any question about why 2/3 of the prison population is on a U-shaped treadmill beginning and ending in prison is answerable to some degree in the above. "Jail" is not a deterrent in it's current incarnation and unless you make prison far more unpleasant, uncomfortable, and difficult the only tool you have to push criminals toward cooperation with authorities and to possibly make them think twice about committing a heinous crime is an applied and credible threat of a death penalty.
-
As a deterrent, the death penalty may work (it's impossible to measure prevented crimes) but certainly as a tool for leveraging cooperation it has proved very successful.
As far as I'm concerned, this might be the death penalty's only useful function, which is interesting, because in the case in which it is used, it is not carried out. Of course, for it to have any weight when used as leverage, it would have to be carried out, even if very infrequently.
I think it was used in the Green River Killer case to get him to identify more victims. In this case, I don't know whether it is worth it (although it certainly was to those families, but maybe not to society in general), but in other cases, if it is used to protect victims who are still alive, it might be worth it.
-
I'm of the opinion that the death penalty is "wrong" - but really, who gives a shit if it's right or wrong morally when deciding on whether something should be legal or not? It's not up to the state to determine mores, only to enforce its laws that protect the sovereignty and rights of its citizens.
ALL of its citizens. Not just the majority.
What matters isn't the rightness of capital punishment (another fine euphamism for the death penalty, or as they used to say in the U.K., in her majesty's permanent custody) but whether it's useful or not.
What is the purpose of the death penalty?
It sure isn't prevention or deterrance, since we know that violent crime has only increased since the advent of the legal death penalty in most states.
Is it revenge? Is the purpose of killing convicts to make the rest of society feel better?
Is it a cost/benefits analysis, where it's just cheaper to kill someone now than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives?
I mean, if the purpose is to keep a bad seed from hurting others, then if you imprison them that mission is accomplished. So why put them to death?
-
I'm of the opinion that the death penalty is "wrong" - but really, who gives a shit if it's right or wrong morally when deciding on whether something should be legal or not? It's not up to the state to determine mores, only to enforce its laws that protect the sovereignty and rights of its citizens.
I agree, in that deciding whether the death penalty is wrong and deciding whether the death penalty is unconstitutional are different issues. In fact, I wrote a paper on for a Philosophy of Law class. However, many disagree with that idea--that the two issues (the morality and constitutionality of a law) are actually that different. Ronald Dworkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin) is someone who may argue more along these lines.
What matters isn't the rightness of capital punishment (another fine euphamism for the death penalty, or as they used to say in the U.K., in her majesty's permanent custody) but whether it's useful or not.
This is a specific and perhaps not that widely accepted theory of law. It's not exactly utilitarianism, maybe, because a utilitarian would argue something like a law is right (morally) because it is useful, but it's close. I, and many people I know, and I'm sure many on this board, believe that it matters significanly whether a law is morally right. It might be separate from the question of a law's constitutionality, but it matters in the legislation process. It matters to the citizens and the state. I don't believe that there is a wall between morality and state, even if there is one between church and state (and I'm doubtful of that, too).
It sure isn't prevention or deterrance, since we know that violent crime has only increased since the advent of the legal death penalty in most states.
I think that the jury is still out on this, no? I know studies have shown that the rate of violence increases in some states after an execution, but I don't know the specifics. For example, if only muggings went up, but other types of violent crime went or stayed down, the death penalty might still be an effective deterrent. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it probably isn't that effective as a deterrent, but I think the issue is far from decided.
Is it a cost/benefits analysis, where it's just cheaper to kill someone now than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives?
I mean, if the purpose is to keep a bad seed from hurting others, then if you imprison them that mission is accomplished. So why put them to death?
Yeah, I guess it's been shown that it's actually more expensive to execute someone than to lock him up for life, at least in the US. But look at that recent execution in Singapore--I'm sure that it was far less expensive than ones here. It was comparitively very swift punishment. Hard-liners here argue that the process should be much less complicated here. If it was, then it would probably cost much less to execute someone than it would be to lock him up for life. However, I think most Americans agree that to take someone's life, even a convicted killer's, is a very serious issue, and should be done only careful consideration and strict scrutiny. This takes a lot of money.
-
I understand Cort's comment but in my opinion, I can like apples and oranges and his argument seems to be that I can't like apples and oranges.
It's more about language. You can like both and you can say you like both. I'm talking about people who repeat that they like all fruit but then say that kiwi suck. It's just part of the inherent danger of always/never/all/none statements.
-
A-Dawg: I'm not sure I'd agree with you on the point of using the death penalty as a negotiating tool, Australia has not had the death penalty for a good many years now (technically abolished in the mid 80s but not actually used since the late 60s (and not used in my state since 1913 which is odd since we are meant to be the country bumpkins up here)) and (I'm assuming here) our police are still able to negoitate deals and so forth. I think it would be a mistake to act like the most extreme bargaining chip is the only one.
I agree with Jough that the usefulness of a law is more important than it's morality. Not only are morals very subjective but if we judge laws by their usefullness it is easier to argue for a law to be discarded if it no longer serves it's purpose. Laws should be about what is best for the community as a whole when we start using morals as a basis for laws we end up only serving certain groups and victimising others. Not that I'm saying moral based laws are always bad just that they should be useful to the community as a whole as well.
-
A-Dawg: I'm not sure I'd agree with you on the point of using the death penalty as a negotiating tool, Australia has not had the death penalty for a good many years now (technically abolished in the mid 80s but not actually used since the late 60s (and not used in my state since 1913 which is odd since we are meant to be the country bumpkins up here)) and (I'm assuming here) our police are still able to negoitate deals and so forth. I think it would be a mistake to act like the most extreme bargaining chip is the only one.
I agree with Jough that the usefulness of a law is more important than it's morality. Not only are morals very subjective but if we judge laws by their usefullness it is easier to argue for a law to be discarded if it no longer serves it's purpose. Laws should be about what is best for the community as a whole when we start using morals as a basis for laws we end up only serving certain groups and victimising others. Not that I'm saying moral based laws are always bad just that they should be useful to the community as a whole as well.
I don't know what the recitivism rate or the violent crime rate is where you live - but I think when we talk about the death penalty, we can agree that we aren't trying to deter jaywalking or plea-bargain with people who commit wire fraud. It's meant to apply to the worst of the worst both contextually and in reality. We're talking about real social monsters like Sammy Gravano or John Wayne Gacy.
To your second point: It is interesting to ponder the origin of law as to whether it makes more sense to come from morality or utility (at least, I think that's where the argument is) when creating law. I believe that when we gather together as communities, we develop a basic set of mores based on maximizing our ability to function as a group. But do we come to an agreement on 'objective' measures of what's best for the group as a whole (counting 'utils' as it were) or subjective measures for what we think is best for the group (moral feeling or sense of 'good')?
I suspect we (rightly and naturally) do both.
-
My point was that there are a lot of people who claim to be "pro-life" when discussing abortion but who then turn around and support the death penalty. Pro-life means anti-choice, anti-execution, anti-war, and anti-euthanasia/assisted suicide. But the term has been so twisted that many people only associate it with the first one so you've got "pro-life" people who actively want adults to be killed.
See, I went and interpreted that 'pro-life' label as a single issue subject 'cause there's too much room for well reasoned disparity of opinion between the subjects on that list you threw out there for my taste.
'Course, I don't use the pro-life label either.
'Course, I still don't buy your prior statement 'cause redifing the terms someone else is using into another context for interpretation as you're right and their dumb nananaaa is pretty crap and playground.
That was the definition I learned growing up Catholic where all of those issues were seen as black and white. Although I've since learned that pro-choice organizations also use this definition but for snarky reasons.]
You see, it's more complicated than redefining someone else's terms. George W. Bush has cribbed the "culture of life" phrase from the Catholic church (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32959-2005Jan24.html) , but has deprived it of its robust meaning.
-
I agree with Jough that the usefulness of a law is more important than it's morality. Not only are morals very subjective but if we judge laws by their usefullness it is easier to argue for a law to be discarded if it no longer serves it's purpose. Laws should be about what is best for the community as a whole when we start using morals as a basis for laws we end up only serving certain groups and victimising others. Not that I'm saying moral based laws are always bad just that they should be useful to the community as a whole as well.
Who knows where morality comes from, but what you just described is a system of morality.
-
AD: The level of violent crime over here isn't as bad as what I am lead to believe it is in many parts of america however we certainly have our fair share of organised crime and situations where the death penalty could be used a bargaining chip in the way you describe. Nevertheless it seems our police force are able to deal with it by other means.
I also probably worded my other point badly, what I should have said is that wherever we derive our laws from (and morals have seemed to work in many cases) the fact that morals are subjective mean they are at best an iffy way of judging a law's worth.
Not sure if that was any better, but it's late. From what you said before I think you got me alright.
Miles: Damn those 'should' statements. You're right of course and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with morals being the basis of laws just that since morals are subjective morals alone is probably not quite good enough. Which is another moral statement so there you go.
-
I wonder if it also works a little like this -
Early in the development of mankind, when individuals began to come together, there was a good deal of superstition and dependence on some form of deific thoughts to explain natural phenomena and a natural urge also to seek direction from what seemed to be a very powerful supernatural being. "Natural Law" and "Divine Right" was the norm.
The individuals evolved intellectually and also began to refine the spiritual systems too. Rationalism gained ground as science took root. Cause and effect was clearly documented and objective measures for all manner of things became a normal part of everyday life. Law became based on what makes communities work well together (and also the birth of a wonderful thing called 'litigation' was witnessed)
There seem to be perioidic swings between more secular and more spiritual thinking dominating thought and speech now. I wonder if, also, there is a longer cycle of swing between secular and spiritual preponderance in leadership and lawmaking.
I'm glad to be here in America where we have freedom of speech and assembly - these kind of swings usually cause intellectual discomfort for some but not wholesale social upheaval.
-
Death is an absolute; imprisonment in the US is, as Asherdan pointed out earlier, is a lifestyle choice complete with cable and playstations and drugs and sex and zero accountability to anyone except yourself and that is disastrous. When you take someone who has spent several years in a 100% selgiraffe self-preservation environment and release them into society, you find that that individual has very limited ability to negotiate ordinary social transactions and inability to function interdependently with other people. And the only method they have any skill or experience in for resolving the inevitable conflicts that arise from these these two problems is violence.
Any question about why 2/3 of the prison population is on a U-shaped treadmill beginning and ending in prison is answerable to some degree in the above. "Jail" is not a deterrent in it's current incarnation and unless you make prison far more unpleasant, uncomfortable, and difficult the only tool you have to push criminals toward cooperation with authorities and to possibly make them think twice about committing a heinous crime is an applied and credible threat of a death penalty.
What HAS been shown to most effectively prevent a return trip to jail is education programs and the like, to help convicts actually develop useable skills so they can get a damn job when they get out. (I don't have stats and such readily available, but could probably dig them up if necessary--I read an article about a prison in Pennsylvania that was really good at this and had the lowest repeat offender rates of any prison of its class in the country.) But such programs are often cut off, because those who want to make prison "far more unpleasant" think they constitute "coddling" prisoners. What say you to this?
-
I would first defer to Asherdan's statements based on his experiences with convicted criminals in the California Correctional system. He knows that system and he's seen how people succeed (or not) in it.
I agree with you in the sense that a motivated man or woman in a prison who takes advantage of training and education should have a much better chance of creating a legitimate and crime-free life when released.
My experience with formerly incarcerated people tells me, though, that there is a lower success rate than you would want and certainly than you would expect for a lot of reasons, many of which are not in the sphere of control of the released individual.
For the large number of people convicted of crimes related to drug addiction, there is a huge relapse rate. Combine this with the difficulties an ex-con already has getting work and you have huge hurdles for people to overcome. The return-to-prison rate is fueled in part by frustration with dealing with life on the outside because it can be a pretty harsh environment for an ex-con, especially one who may have been marginalized in the first place and now is further marginalized. For others, release from prison means returning to a neighborhood or a family or an organization/enterprise which is engaged in the activities that got them convicted in the first place. It becomes a matter of time.
I don't disagree that a society should try to empower people to improve their chances of success. Tools are useful in the hands of people committed to doing the job - and there are people in prisons who are sincere in their desire to better themselves and never return. Even some of them return, possibly for the reasons above.
I think that there is social change that needs to happen in the neighborhoods and communities beginning at the level of the family. I don't think the education or skills training you can get in prison is any better than that which you might get outside of prison. The difference is the controlled environment. Strong parents and strong communities could accomplish the same education/training goals for young people without the crippling addition of a felony conviction hampering their prospects.
-
For example, Cali makes great use of the Fire Camp system. Low end early offenders get to go out and live in camps in the Sierra range and learn applied skills (equipment maintenance, heavy machinery operation, welding, etc.) and with good work and behaviour dudes earn more priveledges. I heard all about how great it was from guys back in for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, whatever time.
I would be interested to know if a shoplifter or guy caught holding went to a Fire Camp, got all these skills and came out with enhanced skills as, say, a car thief or with a cutting torch as a chopper - Skills are just tools and if you give someone with flawed values skills and return them to an environment that fosters bad behavior, how do you expect those skills will be used?
-
I would be interested to know if a shoplifter or guy caught holding went to a Fire Camp, got all these skills and came out with enhanced skills as, say, a car thief or with a cutting torch as a chopper - Skills are just tools and if you give someone with flawed values skills and return them to an environment that fosters bad behavior, how do you expect those skills will be used?
That's a good point, but I think that the idea behind programs like that is that some criminals are criminals because they lack certain practical skills. Who knows if it's true, but I imagine that was part of the idea. In a criminology class I took a while back the professor (who worked for the Utah Department of Corrections and did a lot of research in that area) said that some prison systems have tried a program where morality is taught through the study of literature. I don't remember the details but it sounded interesting.