Even amongst you like-minded readers, I may get some heat for this one. No worries.
One of the big stories today is that the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 was released to return home to Libya. He has terminal cancer of some kind, and it was uniformly agreed he would not live beyond 3 months.
This guy (Megrahi) was convicted in 2001 so he hasn't been in prison very long. And you may recall, the 1988 bombing killed 270 people. But Scottish law--the plane crashed in Lockerbie, so he was tried/imprisoned by the Scots--allows "compassionate" releases of prisoners in Megrahi's situation.
Needless to say, pretty much everybody is against this. I've seen numerous firestorm opinions about how terrible a decision this was by the Scottish government. I've even seen no less than four Facebook status updates decrying his release.
I disagree. I think it's fine.
Why? Because why not. What purpose does it serve to have this man die in prison, as opposed to at home with his family? In fact, it only adds more vitriol and poison into the world. Had he died in prison, it'd be a minor news story and the victims of Flight 103 (the families of those lost) might pause a moment and be glad he's gone from the earth. But is it better that he die in prison? It adds nothing of value. It doesn't make the dead return to life, and it's not, as everyone has been screaming, justice that he die in prison.
Justice means that he was held accountable. I don't recall the specifics of his charges, or what he was ultimately convicted for, but he was caught, tried, and imprisoned. He was brought to justice. His illness makes it virtually impossible for him to cause harm again. Justice was served, and anything beyond that--wishing that he'd die in prison, sick and alone--is vengeance. Vengeance is unbecoming and, while it is an understandable desire for those who have been wronged, it serves no purpose. Vengeance adds nothing to our humanity, and is in fact only a reflection of the baser instincts we should strive to overcome.
I keep reading that Megrahi "didn't have compassion for the victims of 103, why should we give him any?" But compassion is easy to have when it involves your grandmother. It's much tougher to apply when the focus of the compassion is a man that by all accounts is a fairly evil guy. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give him compassion. It makes us better people having done so.
Showing posts with label let god sort 'em out. Show all posts
Showing posts with label let god sort 'em out. Show all posts
August 20, 2009
July 29, 2009
More on Cops
That whole Gates dust-up is still going a bit, with Obama speaking at length on the subject during his press conference last week. And now the three of them (the President, Gates, and the police officer) are having beers or something. Which is a surprisingly pragmatic way to resolve things.
I am sure that this cop is not a bad person. I don't think Gates is a bad person. I think they were both on edge for different reasons, and as I said before, the duty falls to the police in that scenario to keep things rational. They screwed up by arresting him.
I don't have a problem with cops, in general. Lots of generalizations can be made about them, and I do suspect that many of the stereotypes about cops are "more true" in some areas of the country than in others. They have to be on guard all the time, and it leads to a pretty no-nonsense attitude that can be off-putting to the general citizenry.
Especially when the general public hasn't done anything wrong. As was the case with Gates, and as was the case with this guy in Mobile, Alabama, who is tasered and pepper-sprayed by the cops, and then arrested for not leaving a department store bathroom when told. That alone is already beyond stupid, but the clincher is that he was deaf and mentally challenged. Kudos all around, officers.
It's this kind of situation that gives cops a bad name. The inability to think outside the box for just a moment, and to go with brute force when several other possibilities exist. And then--and this is key--to refuse to admit a screw up when it happens. I don't know if it's pride, or some sort of face-saving attitude, but when cops arrive on the scene to find it is not a robbery, or burglary, or trespassing, they need to defuse and walk away. It may be the somewhat militaristic attitude that seeps into police work that gives rise to the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude.
Again, I respect the need for safety and caution. When that gentleman in D.C. was shot to death after charging his car into a blockade a few weeks back, I thought it was a reasonable response by the cops. That is not analogous to either of the above situations; when there is danger to life and limb, the scenario is entirely different. I am sorry that man was killed, but it is not the fault of the police (from what I saw; if things came out later, I didn't hear about them).
But there's a difference, and we should expect the police, who are in a position of great authority in this country, to be able to distinguish between the situations. If someone is argumentative but in their house and not committing a crime, walk away. If someone won't come out of a department store bathroom, maybe you have to break the door down eventually but pepper spray? Tasers? Completely unnecessary. They should have busted down the door, recognized the situation, and taken the poor guy for ice cream before returning him home.
I know what it's like to have to stay "above reproach". It's a big part of practicing litigation (at least, the way I practice it) because the ultimate arbiter--the judge--usually appreciates when attorneys don't engage in shenanigans or try and pull one over on the court. Plus, when I lose (it happens, very occasionally) I can feel like I did my best in the situation.
It's not a perfect analogy to police work, but it's worth considering. Or, you can take a note from probably the greatest movie of all time: "Be nice. Ask him to walk. If he won't walk, walk him. But be nice. I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice."
In Swayze We Trust.
I am sure that this cop is not a bad person. I don't think Gates is a bad person. I think they were both on edge for different reasons, and as I said before, the duty falls to the police in that scenario to keep things rational. They screwed up by arresting him.
I don't have a problem with cops, in general. Lots of generalizations can be made about them, and I do suspect that many of the stereotypes about cops are "more true" in some areas of the country than in others. They have to be on guard all the time, and it leads to a pretty no-nonsense attitude that can be off-putting to the general citizenry.
Especially when the general public hasn't done anything wrong. As was the case with Gates, and as was the case with this guy in Mobile, Alabama, who is tasered and pepper-sprayed by the cops, and then arrested for not leaving a department store bathroom when told. That alone is already beyond stupid, but the clincher is that he was deaf and mentally challenged. Kudos all around, officers.
It's this kind of situation that gives cops a bad name. The inability to think outside the box for just a moment, and to go with brute force when several other possibilities exist. And then--and this is key--to refuse to admit a screw up when it happens. I don't know if it's pride, or some sort of face-saving attitude, but when cops arrive on the scene to find it is not a robbery, or burglary, or trespassing, they need to defuse and walk away. It may be the somewhat militaristic attitude that seeps into police work that gives rise to the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude.
Again, I respect the need for safety and caution. When that gentleman in D.C. was shot to death after charging his car into a blockade a few weeks back, I thought it was a reasonable response by the cops. That is not analogous to either of the above situations; when there is danger to life and limb, the scenario is entirely different. I am sorry that man was killed, but it is not the fault of the police (from what I saw; if things came out later, I didn't hear about them).
But there's a difference, and we should expect the police, who are in a position of great authority in this country, to be able to distinguish between the situations. If someone is argumentative but in their house and not committing a crime, walk away. If someone won't come out of a department store bathroom, maybe you have to break the door down eventually but pepper spray? Tasers? Completely unnecessary. They should have busted down the door, recognized the situation, and taken the poor guy for ice cream before returning him home.
I know what it's like to have to stay "above reproach". It's a big part of practicing litigation (at least, the way I practice it) because the ultimate arbiter--the judge--usually appreciates when attorneys don't engage in shenanigans or try and pull one over on the court. Plus, when I lose (it happens, very occasionally) I can feel like I did my best in the situation.
It's not a perfect analogy to police work, but it's worth considering. Or, you can take a note from probably the greatest movie of all time: "Be nice. Ask him to walk. If he won't walk, walk him. But be nice. I want you to be nice until it's time to not be nice."
In Swayze We Trust.
December 15, 2008
How Do You Live?
So I'm cooking up a Trader Joe's burrito tonight, and it strikes me how rough it must have been in the days before microwave ovens. I mean, seriously?!
Microwave: Cover burrito with paper towel. Defrost at 50% power for 2 minutes. Heat on high 1 minute.Yeah I could cook it in the oven. Or I could LIVE MY LIFE.
Oven: Pre-heat oven to 350. Remove burritos from package and wrap in foil and place on baking sheet. Cook burritos for 40 minutes.
November 4, 2008
A Few Thoughts on This Historic Day
First, and most obviously, you should go vote. Whether it's for Obama or the other guy, you should vote. The only caveat is if you would vote for Obama, but won't because he's not white, just don't vote at all. We'll look for you and your enlightened self in 2012, but for now, go ahead and stay home. It's the least you can do.
Everyone else--conservatives and liberals alike--should be at the polls. Or, if you did the whole early voting thing, at home laughing at those who are standing in line today. My voting experience was quick and painless, though it cost me 35 cents for a meter because the parking lot was jammed.
Second, if Obama wins (and he better--see below) and then wins again in 2012, I was thinking that perhaps in 2016 when he is done with politics, somebody should nominate him to the Supreme Court. He's clearly a smart guy, and a good lawyer, and it's not without precedent (Taft did this way back in the early 20th century).
And finally, my usual party-pooper finale. I wrote about this a few months back, but it bears repeating today because my predictions at that time are on the mark: every shred of evidence, except for the actual vote tally, points to a major Obama win tonight. It is inconceivable that every single poll--not just the outliers but all of the national and state polling--would be wrong.
So if McCain wins, what does that mean? I gotta say, it means this election was stolen (which is unlikely) or that Americans are a racist bunch of assclowns. Not, as I said before, because a vote for McCain is a racist act. It's not. But the only way that every single poll could be that far off would be if the dreaded Bradley effect really occurs, and Americans have been lying to pollsters. If people will theoretically vote for Obama, but when actually making their choice, cannot do so.
It would be shameful. A stain on our country, and as I said before, possibly the moment that historians point to when they discuss the decline of the American empire. I am hoping that in a few short hours, the Bradley effect will be put to bed once and for all. But I ain't celebrating yet.
Everyone else--conservatives and liberals alike--should be at the polls. Or, if you did the whole early voting thing, at home laughing at those who are standing in line today. My voting experience was quick and painless, though it cost me 35 cents for a meter because the parking lot was jammed.
Second, if Obama wins (and he better--see below) and then wins again in 2012, I was thinking that perhaps in 2016 when he is done with politics, somebody should nominate him to the Supreme Court. He's clearly a smart guy, and a good lawyer, and it's not without precedent (Taft did this way back in the early 20th century).
And finally, my usual party-pooper finale. I wrote about this a few months back, but it bears repeating today because my predictions at that time are on the mark: every shred of evidence, except for the actual vote tally, points to a major Obama win tonight. It is inconceivable that every single poll--not just the outliers but all of the national and state polling--would be wrong.
So if McCain wins, what does that mean? I gotta say, it means this election was stolen (which is unlikely) or that Americans are a racist bunch of assclowns. Not, as I said before, because a vote for McCain is a racist act. It's not. But the only way that every single poll could be that far off would be if the dreaded Bradley effect really occurs, and Americans have been lying to pollsters. If people will theoretically vote for Obama, but when actually making their choice, cannot do so.
It would be shameful. A stain on our country, and as I said before, possibly the moment that historians point to when they discuss the decline of the American empire. I am hoping that in a few short hours, the Bradley effect will be put to bed once and for all. But I ain't celebrating yet.
October 6, 2008
Economic Apocalypses Are Boring
So, do we have a plan B?
Clearly my boned statement from a few weeks back was accurate, although at the time I meant McCain was boned.
But Shock of Shocks, people, the bailout may not work! In fact, Wall Street lost more money than the entire liquid value of the bailout before I got out of bed today!
I won't subject you to another poorly-thought-out rant on economic policies, mostly because I don't have it in me. Because it's so boring to lose your life's savings this way. I expect that we will eventually rebound and the economy will be fine, but mostly I'm hoping this isn't the End of It All because what a lame way to go down. There are so many better dystopian near-futures we could have!
The Planet Runs Dry of Oil - Mad Max covered this nicely, at least if you're an Aussie. It's unclear how the massive fuel shortage effected the U.S. during the events of The Road Warrior, but if the movie is any indicator, we'll wear lots of football gear, be into punk rock, and maybe be a little gay.
The Planet Runs a Little Hot - We could go the opposite route, and melt the polar icecaps. Less desert, more coastline. Except the coastline will be in Ohio. That would necessitate a mass migration, it would probably happen slowly enough to limit the loss of life, but the potential for starvation would be significant. Now, I'm not advocating for this at all, but that there's a doomsday scenario you can hang your hat on. Also, I could stop paying off my student loans.
The Planet Gets a Little Exploded - Asteroids are the heavy hitters of doomsday devices. We can't really see them coming--at least, not with enough time to actually do anything about it--and they can conceivably wipe out the whole planet. This is less fun for futuristic dystopia reasons, because a wiped planet means no people to be all anarchistic and cyberpunked. Let's just watch Deep Impact again and pray for a President as awesome as Morgan Freeman.
Clearly my boned statement from a few weeks back was accurate, although at the time I meant McCain was boned.
But Shock of Shocks, people, the bailout may not work! In fact, Wall Street lost more money than the entire liquid value of the bailout before I got out of bed today!
I won't subject you to another poorly-thought-out rant on economic policies, mostly because I don't have it in me. Because it's so boring to lose your life's savings this way. I expect that we will eventually rebound and the economy will be fine, but mostly I'm hoping this isn't the End of It All because what a lame way to go down. There are so many better dystopian near-futures we could have!
The Planet Runs Dry of Oil - Mad Max covered this nicely, at least if you're an Aussie. It's unclear how the massive fuel shortage effected the U.S. during the events of The Road Warrior, but if the movie is any indicator, we'll wear lots of football gear, be into punk rock, and maybe be a little gay.
The Planet Runs a Little Hot - We could go the opposite route, and melt the polar icecaps. Less desert, more coastline. Except the coastline will be in Ohio. That would necessitate a mass migration, it would probably happen slowly enough to limit the loss of life, but the potential for starvation would be significant. Now, I'm not advocating for this at all, but that there's a doomsday scenario you can hang your hat on. Also, I could stop paying off my student loans.
The Planet Gets a Little Exploded - Asteroids are the heavy hitters of doomsday devices. We can't really see them coming--at least, not with enough time to actually do anything about it--and they can conceivably wipe out the whole planet. This is less fun for futuristic dystopia reasons, because a wiped planet means no people to be all anarchistic and cyberpunked. Let's just watch Deep Impact again and pray for a President as awesome as Morgan Freeman.
October 2, 2008
Hotels: Gateway to Hell
Why are hotels so scary?
It's a relatively common theme in movies, books and television. 1408, last year, was a hotel. The Shining is probably the gold standard of scary hotels. Motels don't get a reprieve (Psycho, Identity, that one with a Wilson brother that came out last year) but at least with motels, the location is more of a seedy backdrop.
With hotels, they're often the root cause of the evil when they're onscreen. Or they meet a specific need of the evil denizens that would be unmet by other structures.
Is it because they are musty, lived-in places? The older ones, especially, have seen thousands of guests over many decades; is that creepy in and of itself?
I've never been scared when staying in a hotel or motel. No premonitions or lurking evils. Am I unusual? Do other people get routinely creeped out when staying in such a place?
It's a relatively common theme in movies, books and television. 1408, last year, was a hotel. The Shining is probably the gold standard of scary hotels. Motels don't get a reprieve (Psycho, Identity, that one with a Wilson brother that came out last year) but at least with motels, the location is more of a seedy backdrop.
With hotels, they're often the root cause of the evil when they're onscreen. Or they meet a specific need of the evil denizens that would be unmet by other structures.
Is it because they are musty, lived-in places? The older ones, especially, have seen thousands of guests over many decades; is that creepy in and of itself?
I've never been scared when staying in a hotel or motel. No premonitions or lurking evils. Am I unusual? Do other people get routinely creeped out when staying in such a place?
May 27, 2008
What It Do (Did)
Another grand Memorial Day is past us, and so I look back in reflection at all that I accomplished.
- Re-arranged the apartment. Now I need more furniture. I floated the idea of opening a small break-dancing studio using the extra space, but it was summarily voted down by interested parties.
- Saw Indiana Jones. The new one. The first 45 minutes were gangbusters, definitely Indy at his best. The second half was more tedious and lost some of the spark somehow. A mix of an A and a C- movie.
- Even did some work! Not a hell of a lot, but anything that keeps me paid is good.
- Play about 30 minutes of Call of Duty. I figured I had to, in honor of the holiday. I memorialized our fallen servicemen and women by shooting the hell out of some terrorists. Or someone, I lost track of the plot. But (virtual) bullets were fired.
That's about it, actually. Sunday was particularly productive, as two of the above items occurred then. Monday was sort of useless, but it should serve to speed the week up quite nicely.
- Re-arranged the apartment. Now I need more furniture. I floated the idea of opening a small break-dancing studio using the extra space, but it was summarily voted down by interested parties.
- Saw Indiana Jones. The new one. The first 45 minutes were gangbusters, definitely Indy at his best. The second half was more tedious and lost some of the spark somehow. A mix of an A and a C- movie.
- Even did some work! Not a hell of a lot, but anything that keeps me paid is good.
- Play about 30 minutes of Call of Duty. I figured I had to, in honor of the holiday. I memorialized our fallen servicemen and women by shooting the hell out of some terrorists. Or someone, I lost track of the plot. But (virtual) bullets were fired.
That's about it, actually. Sunday was particularly productive, as two of the above items occurred then. Monday was sort of useless, but it should serve to speed the week up quite nicely.
May 20, 2008
Five Things I Have Thus Far Learned From Playing GTA4
1. It's so pretty.
2. Do not ram into gas stations. It will end poorly for you.
3. Floor it immediately after you jack somebody's car, because man will they put up a fight otherwise.
4. So very pretty.
5. Despite all the upgrades in graphics, control, and depth of play, it's still just awesome to watch a string of cars erupt into fireballs on the freeway.
2. Do not ram into gas stations. It will end poorly for you.
3. Floor it immediately after you jack somebody's car, because man will they put up a fight otherwise.
4. So very pretty.
5. Despite all the upgrades in graphics, control, and depth of play, it's still just awesome to watch a string of cars erupt into fireballs on the freeway.
May 13, 2008
This Troubles Me
I've had a post circulating in my brain for awhile now, but I haven't been sure how to state my thoughts.
Today in the Post there was an article on racism and the Obama campaign.
Now I could be wrong about this, in which case--like most predictions or portents of doom--nobody will even remember what I prophesied. And I'll be really glad if it doesn't come to be.
But here's the concern:
Not electing Barack Obama in 2008 could be the end of our country. The end of America's reign as the leading superpower in the world. It could be the moment that historians 500 years from now look back and say, "That was the straw that broke America's back."
The reason? It will destroy a vast portion of our society and citizenry if Obama is defeated because people cannot vote for a black man. And I'm not sure they can, especially given the sentiments described in the above article. I hope to God we are ready, and that America can step up and do this.
But if we're not, what does this mean? The level of resentment--of sheer anger--could be higher than anything we've experienced before. The divide between the progressives and the racist underbelly may be drawn into stark and unflinching view. Can we handle looking at ourselves this way? Can we not take to the streets, and tear out this rotten core?
Maybe it won't be so obvious. Maybe enough conservatives will convince the rest of the country that they voted policy, and not color. Maybe they actually will, and for some reason 51% of the country will disagree with Obama. But given the past 8 years--more than 70% of the country hates our current President--and the lack of change from McCain (who is rapidly disappointing me by dropping all his reformist opinions), I really don't see how most people can argue voting Republican in November.
If they do, I think that might be it for us. Never before have we had such a remarkable candidate who also happens to be black. If we can't vote for him because of his skin color, well then we don't deserve to be a superpower. We don't deserve the national unity required to remain a superpower. We deserve to crumble as Rome did. We deserve to be torn apart from the inside.
So for all you conservatives out there -- you better damn well make your case against Obama on policy, and make it strong. I may disagree with your ideas, but I respect them.
You independents and "apolitical" types better take a long, hard look at your reasons before you vote against him. If Obama loses because of your racist attitudes, I'll be first in line in any revolution that may follow. I'll call for your heads, and if this country burns I will be glad to see it go.
Today in the Post there was an article on racism and the Obama campaign.
Now I could be wrong about this, in which case--like most predictions or portents of doom--nobody will even remember what I prophesied. And I'll be really glad if it doesn't come to be.
But here's the concern:
Not electing Barack Obama in 2008 could be the end of our country. The end of America's reign as the leading superpower in the world. It could be the moment that historians 500 years from now look back and say, "That was the straw that broke America's back."
The reason? It will destroy a vast portion of our society and citizenry if Obama is defeated because people cannot vote for a black man. And I'm not sure they can, especially given the sentiments described in the above article. I hope to God we are ready, and that America can step up and do this.
But if we're not, what does this mean? The level of resentment--of sheer anger--could be higher than anything we've experienced before. The divide between the progressives and the racist underbelly may be drawn into stark and unflinching view. Can we handle looking at ourselves this way? Can we not take to the streets, and tear out this rotten core?
Maybe it won't be so obvious. Maybe enough conservatives will convince the rest of the country that they voted policy, and not color. Maybe they actually will, and for some reason 51% of the country will disagree with Obama. But given the past 8 years--more than 70% of the country hates our current President--and the lack of change from McCain (who is rapidly disappointing me by dropping all his reformist opinions), I really don't see how most people can argue voting Republican in November.
If they do, I think that might be it for us. Never before have we had such a remarkable candidate who also happens to be black. If we can't vote for him because of his skin color, well then we don't deserve to be a superpower. We don't deserve the national unity required to remain a superpower. We deserve to crumble as Rome did. We deserve to be torn apart from the inside.
So for all you conservatives out there -- you better damn well make your case against Obama on policy, and make it strong. I may disagree with your ideas, but I respect them.
You independents and "apolitical" types better take a long, hard look at your reasons before you vote against him. If Obama loses because of your racist attitudes, I'll be first in line in any revolution that may follow. I'll call for your heads, and if this country burns I will be glad to see it go.
April 17, 2008
Reasons
Some recent decisions and arguments before the Supremes have gotten everybody up in a tizzy about the death penalty again. So I thought I'd lay this out for you folks.
The death penalty is stupid, anachronistic, and useless.
What's fun is how many liberal-types support the death penalty because it helps cut the argument that they're "bleeding hearts", and yet it's one of the most idiotic policies we Americans still cling to. Here's why:
1. It is not a deterrent. People do not stop murdering because they might get the chair (or the injection, or whatever). You can argue that this is because it takes years to carry out a sentence of capital punishment, but more likely it is because people who murder are usually not thinking rationally. It's why they are murdering in the first place.
What's worse, it may actually push those who kill to commit MORE murders, not less. If you're robbing a bank and you shoot the guard, why not just start shooting everybody? You've already crossed the line, and dead witnesses are much better for your upcoming trial.
2. It is not efficient. The safeguards we have in place to prevent unfair or unlawful executions include numerous automatic appeals, a process which takes years and sucks up valuable court time. Yes, you could argue that these appeals are the problem, but without them capital punishment is even more tenuous. We have a problem with executing the innocent already (see below), and "speeding things up" will not solve that.
3. It is not infallible. If you put a convicted murderer in jail for life, and find out 30 years later he was as innocent as he maintained, you can let him out. Pissed as hell, I bet, but he is alive. Execute him, and you're a murderer. It doesn't matter if all the evidence pointed that way (even if it often does not), if you're wrong you can't undo it. You can't give a 30-year convict his 30 years back, either, but you can stop punishment.
No punishment meted out by government should be permanent. Any advanced society must be able to recognize and correct its mistakes, and in large part our government has the framework to do just that. But capital punishment takes away this ability, and for no good reason.
4. It is not as good as life in prison. I do not understand why sending a murderer to the Great Beyond seems like a better solution. I would much rather be free of this earthly plane, than spend the rest of my waking life in a 5x10 cell.
The bleeding hearts will also argue that execution removes any chance for redemption, and while this is a bit naive, it is true. Even if it takes 40 years, what if a prisoner turns it around? He may not be able to change his life (he'll still be in prison, after all), but why should we execute someone who realizes his error and wishes to atone?
5. Do it yourself. Let's be honest here; the only reason to execute somebody is because we thirst to take from them what they've stolen from us (our loved one). So I say, take it. You, Mr. Father of the Murdered Daughter, go buy a gun and shoot him in open court.
This is a personal feeling, but if I really felt that strongly after someone murdered a loved one, I'd just kill him myself. I will accept the consequences of the action (my own imprisonment) if the feeling is strong enough. I am not advocating mob or vigilante justice--because if I am wrong, and the guy I think is the murderer is not, I will have to accept that as well.
Taking a life is Serious Business. But the government gets to do it without consequence, and that is not how it should work.
The death penalty is stupid, anachronistic, and useless.
What's fun is how many liberal-types support the death penalty because it helps cut the argument that they're "bleeding hearts", and yet it's one of the most idiotic policies we Americans still cling to. Here's why:
1. It is not a deterrent. People do not stop murdering because they might get the chair (or the injection, or whatever). You can argue that this is because it takes years to carry out a sentence of capital punishment, but more likely it is because people who murder are usually not thinking rationally. It's why they are murdering in the first place.
What's worse, it may actually push those who kill to commit MORE murders, not less. If you're robbing a bank and you shoot the guard, why not just start shooting everybody? You've already crossed the line, and dead witnesses are much better for your upcoming trial.
2. It is not efficient. The safeguards we have in place to prevent unfair or unlawful executions include numerous automatic appeals, a process which takes years and sucks up valuable court time. Yes, you could argue that these appeals are the problem, but without them capital punishment is even more tenuous. We have a problem with executing the innocent already (see below), and "speeding things up" will not solve that.
3. It is not infallible. If you put a convicted murderer in jail for life, and find out 30 years later he was as innocent as he maintained, you can let him out. Pissed as hell, I bet, but he is alive. Execute him, and you're a murderer. It doesn't matter if all the evidence pointed that way (even if it often does not), if you're wrong you can't undo it. You can't give a 30-year convict his 30 years back, either, but you can stop punishment.
No punishment meted out by government should be permanent. Any advanced society must be able to recognize and correct its mistakes, and in large part our government has the framework to do just that. But capital punishment takes away this ability, and for no good reason.
4. It is not as good as life in prison. I do not understand why sending a murderer to the Great Beyond seems like a better solution. I would much rather be free of this earthly plane, than spend the rest of my waking life in a 5x10 cell.
The bleeding hearts will also argue that execution removes any chance for redemption, and while this is a bit naive, it is true. Even if it takes 40 years, what if a prisoner turns it around? He may not be able to change his life (he'll still be in prison, after all), but why should we execute someone who realizes his error and wishes to atone?
5. Do it yourself. Let's be honest here; the only reason to execute somebody is because we thirst to take from them what they've stolen from us (our loved one). So I say, take it. You, Mr. Father of the Murdered Daughter, go buy a gun and shoot him in open court.
This is a personal feeling, but if I really felt that strongly after someone murdered a loved one, I'd just kill him myself. I will accept the consequences of the action (my own imprisonment) if the feeling is strong enough. I am not advocating mob or vigilante justice--because if I am wrong, and the guy I think is the murderer is not, I will have to accept that as well.
Taking a life is Serious Business. But the government gets to do it without consequence, and that is not how it should work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)