Hey All,
I'm brand new to this site (I just registered today on the advice of a friend who told me it was a great source of investing info!), and somehow got drawn to this subject. I too, believe this will be an important election. Although, I don't believe it will be as important as some others apparently think it will be.
I'm responding to this particular post from jttmab because it sounds more reasoned than the rest. When debates turn into a bunch of namecalling and screaming, it usually indicates to me (IMO) that the people involved have other PERSONAL ISSUES that need to be resolved and that politics is just a vent for them. I usually ignore rabid discourse because there is no open mind to discuss with - and that's not only frustrating, it's useless. To them, it's their way or the highway.
In terms of the death penalty, there is little difference between the two major political parties, and hence, it's pretty much a mute point during this election. In fact, there is little difference in the two parties at all except on the environmental and social front (abortion, gay rights, and the regulation of morality). Economically, the differences are small. You'd have to go to the Libertarians or the Greens to notice a realizable difference there, I think. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are too scared to upset the vested interests (retirees, corporates, etc). In times past, there were larger differences I think, but no longer.
Speaking directly to what caught my eye, I think we are likely to continue to have the death penalty in use in at least for the next decade, hopefully by then, people can learn to respect each other.
In spite of this, I want to add my two cents worth on this issue since it's one I've debated with people over and over again. I hope I don't bore anyone too much. I would certainly appreciate not being attacked if my opinion doesn't happen to agree with yours. We can all respect each other even if we disagree, I hope. Diversity of thought is important to a republic; I think that was the real great idea that our founding fathers tried to imbue in us all. That whole freedom thing really supports this underlying philosophy in my opinion.
I think any in depth study of the death penalty will reveal a couple of things. First, it is not applied evenly. There are many that rightly point out the uneven application across racial boundaries, but even more dramatic is the uneven application across class boundaries. It's really hard to find rich person that was executed in spite of the fact that rich do apparently kill people. OJ is an example that leaps to mind. If it's not being applied evenly, I think society has to really look at the process and see if that can be fixed before shooting them up with a bunch of poison that melts their internal organs.
Secondly, I've never seen any credible evidence that it has any deterrent value above life without parole.
Thirdly, there is no rehabilitative value in the death penalty.
Fourthly, the death penalty is not reversible if in fact the person is found to be wrongly convicted. There is no making up for it either. In fact, the Achilles heel of the death penalty for many people is this fact.
Consider this. If an innocent person is executed, according to the death penalty advocates own argument, shouldn't the jury or judge that sentenced them be punished in some way? An innocent person was executed, after all. In all fairness, shouldn't someone pay for taking this irreversible step? Perhaps the death penalty advocates should offer up one of their own for execution each time this is ever found out. I think it's hilarious that George W. actually thinks that only the guilty have been executed in Texas, in spite of the fact that's where most of them take place. I guess he wasn't great with math, either. BTW: I don't think George is too smart, but I don't think he'd be a bad President either. Dunno who I'm gonna vote for yet. It's stupid vs indecisive to me.
Society must take care with questions like this because this is a serious issue. It is not an issue that knee jerk reactions are applicable to. I always strive to apply the golden rule to any argument (my personal religious philosophy demands this of me). And, I feel that society should only remove those freedoms that are necessary in order to complete its social goal and go no further. If, indeed, life without parole fulfills the obligation society has to keep the peace, what arguments, other than revenge, justify putting someone to death?
So, if we are left with the notion of retribution only as the justification of execution, then I think we should limit our argument to those boundaries. Are we or are we not going to be a society whose criminal laws are based purely upon the notion of justice and retribution? And, if we ARE, then shouldn't we at the same time apply that consistently by removing any laws that have no victim such as drug laws.
Even though it may be seem easy simply throw people in jail or kill someone in order to "fix" a situation, I don't think it's the best way; and, I think it causes a lot of unintended consequences. Is it possible that killing people regularly imparts to young people that life isn't valuable? Is it possible that this teaching might actually translate into HIGHER murder rates? The empirical evidence from other nations may support this argument. If we take greater care with how we handle citizens, then perhaps citizens will take greater care with each other.
I could be completely whacked, but it is POSSIBLE, isn't it?
-Mark |
