Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (4287)	7/8/2001 2:49:46 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

I interpreted that article as O'Connor pointing specific problems in the adjudication of the death penalty. She did not state she was unequivocally against it. Nor will she. I pretty much agree with that interpretation, though I'd be inclined to add the words "types of" after the word specific. Justice O'Connor was making general observations on the adjudication of the system. She is personally obligated to not state a final position before it comes court. However, I would also interpret that she sees problems with the system and hints...either fix it [the adjudication problems] or the application of the death penalty may be unconstitutional as it stands. What is the problem with the death penalty if properly and carefully adjudicated to avoid error? It's not a trivial condition to properly and carefully adjudicate to avoid error. Error may be the execution of an innocent or it may be the absence of equal application of the death penalty. The more difficult being the latter, perhaps bordering on miraculous. Because it offends your estethetic sense? Not especially. On the philosophical side. I've considered the phrase, Inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think I know what Inalienable means. I can reconcile "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the context of penal incarceration considering humane treatment, access to books, etc. I've never been able to bridge the philosophical gap between Inalienable right to life and the death penalty. The word Ialienable just keeps gnawing away at me. But the Supreme Court has been able to bridge that gap. So be it. On the practical. What does society gain? One more dead. Is it justice or vengence? There doesn't seem to be any indication that application of the death penalty represents a deterrent. No gain to society in that aspect. Death vs. life imprisonment? Society saves some lifetime cost over incarceration. That seems a rather trivial gain to society in the context of an execution. The message of Justice has been served? There may be multiple messages to society with the application of the death penalty. One message being Justice has been served. Pointing to the higher statistical rate of murder in countries that have the death penalty then countries that do not, another unintended message may be there are valid rationalizations that justify the killing of an individual[s]. It seems to me that the human species has a tremendous capacity to rationalize, i.e., self justify, their actions. The death penalty in itself may be providing the basis for rationalization. I'll pose the question, Does the death penalty, inadvertently, result in an increase in the murder rate? No doubt that is counter-intuititive. But there are times when actions have an unintended, and opposite, results. Given the higher murder rate, it's a valid question to ask. I haven't attempted to do the analysis, nor have I seen any on that specific question. But for argument sake, suppose it is true, i.e., that statistically it can be shown that there is an inverse correlation between the death penalty and the murder rate. Is it in the best interests of society to levy the death penalty? jttmab