|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 39 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Preach: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State |
Posted by
Domkitten on Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 12:03 AM PST
I am probably not the only person here who spent a great deal of time as a teenager being emotionally unstable, with wild tastes and interests, and a penchant for reading the biographies, or autobiographies of serial killers. If it were not for the American teenager true crime novelists would probably go out of business; and last time I checked CSI was the most popular show in America, which is brutally and violently obsessive. I still have a twinge of fascination about the mass-murdering mind. This was tweaked again by the recent capture of the Green River Killer. What was more fascinating to me however was not so much his capture, but the absorption with his plea bargain to avoid the Death Penalty.
The Death Penalty is probably one of the most interesting law practices in the country, if you don’t count what they are doing to the arrested terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, which is equally extraordinary. The death penalty is murder that is legally sanctioned by many states and the Federal government, generally reserved for the most horrific and brutal crimes against people.
Texas, a state from which our dear president hails, happens to be a state well know for it’s hanging judges, and swinging juries, has put to death 222 since 1982, and our current President was accountable for 131 of those heads that rolled.1
Executions have come a long way, baby, since the days of the guillotine and the Tower of London, with disembowelment before a gathered crowd, or just burning someone alive to make a point. No longer can you go to the town square to see someone drawn and quartered by being pulled apart by horses. Long gone are the days of roasting alive witches on an open fire. For that kind of gruesome violence you have to go to the movies. These days, of course, executions are pretty things, with the convicts rolled in on a hospital bed, and put to sleep with an injection that also carries with it a poison to stop the heart.
In this modern day and age, we like to think of ourselves as more cultured and refined humans, the type of people who would be violently opposed to the reckless slaughter of our enemies, and yet, when it comes to Death, in this country we continue to condone legalized murder.
What is also potentially more disturbing is that the Green River Killer killed between 48 and 60 women, depending on how honest he is being about those he murdered. In his own statement to the court he said "I killed so many women I have a hard time keeping them straight..."2 This murderer will not be put to death, while there are many on death row in states around the country who will die for having murdered only one person.
The questions that lie here are numerous. Most are concerned with justice. What is really just? Is killing a multiple murder just? Is killing a black gang banger just? Is not killing one man for the murders of over a dozen more just than killing another for murdering only one? When it comes to the death penality in America there are certainly numerous incongruities.
Obviously, justice itself in America can be laughable with more than half the convicts in the states being among poor minorities, men and women who could not afford good representation and legal counsel. Men and women of low or average intelligence, men and women with little to live for anyway. One has to question the use of capital punishment in many cases.
During the "Bush the Younger" reign in Texas there were more than a dozen extraordinary miscarriages of justice for those who were executed, including the execution of a mentally incapable man, a man who was convicted on testimony of witnesses who later recanted, and my personal favorite, the man whose legal counsel slept through a better part of the trial.3
Two years ago in Illinois the governor imposed a moratorium on the Death Penalty after increasing evidence that inmates sentenced to death row consistently received poor council, and that in many of the cases convictions were either overturned later, or evidence was brought to light proving the innocence of those sentenced to die.4
Even with all this though, the nature of human beings persists. There are definitely cases in which unthinkable acts of cruelty have been committed upon innocent or unsuspecting victims. Is it fair to say that all those arrested for murder should face death themselves? Are there pros for execution? A short jail time will certainly means less cost to the State, but all that blood on the hands of our justice system, what does that say?
In the end, I'm happy to hear that justice in some small way is being done, a very wicked man is going to jail for a long time for very terrible crimes. Regardless of whether or not his head will roll, the families have been served. The larger issues in the case of capital punishment may never be solved satisfactorily for everyone.
1. Bush KillsThis sites says the actual count is 152, the New York times says 131, and I'm just going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
2. From the 16 page letter read to the court.
3. An article about Bush's miscarriages of justice.
4. The Illinois Moratorium
|
|
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 3.8
Total ratings : 5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State | Login/Create an account | 24 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State
by Anya on Nov 29, 2003 - 06:05 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://kirashi.envy.nu
|
The death penalty would be nice only if it wasn't abused. Either way, a nice way of punishing a criminal is through nice torture or the age of being in prison. But torture is illegal, so I guess that marks that out.
I only say the death penalty should be an option because there are certain people out there that are major threats to society. Even if they did not end up having their heads rolling, it's a nice to think that it's a possibility. :)
It sounds callous, but I really do think there's some people out there that're better off dead. Just my humble opinion.
|
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State
by chameleon on Nov 29, 2003 - 11:10 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
One of my favourite phrases of all time is, "a country's status of social progress can be determined by the number of people in it's jails, asylums, and nursing homes." Just a little thought provoking quote to get the mental juices flowing.
We have come a long way since torture on the town(hm, sounds like a concert tour), but in some states public hanging is legal if someone is considered guilty enough to warrant such a reprecussion. Strange, how certain states just do not wish to give up on history...
Personally, I think that capital punishment is a needed faculty, but I question many times whether or not the execution of some new criminal was really the answer. Like you stated Dom, justice is quite the elusive objective.
I agree with Anya, some people do not deserve to live, but those cases are few and far between, and everyone should check out George Carlin's ideas on the death penalty they are hilarious!
|
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Nov 30, 2003 - 12:20 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/
|
I"m definitely one of the people on the fence about capitol punnishment, and I'll be honest. My brain says "no" but in some cases my heart SCREAMS "yes". It's a primitive practice, and carried out based on circumstantial evidence (unless there was a witness) most of the time. Then again, there are people who are just murdering scum and shouldn't have been born in the first place. I'm not for turning the other cheek, and my conscious has always carried "eye for an eye", but it always comes out in my brain that capitol punnishment does NOTHING. The threat of death does not deter murderers, it doesn't make them think twice. It's handy as a bargaining chip to get information that would give peace to families left in limbo to the whereabouts of missing and presumably dead loved ones (as in the gary ridgeway "green river killer" case), but what does it DO? It takes a life. A worthless life, but it takes a life, and does nothing to prevent other worthless people from doing the same. And as said, it's very wishywashy, and some serial killers or perps of HORRIBLE crimes get life without parole while a person who kills one person is unanimously sentenced to death. It depends on the jury, their beliefs, and how popular the trial is. I'm sorry but it's impossible to have an "impartial" jury.
Two good movies that illustrate the point against capitol punnishment are "the life of david gale" and "a cry in the dark". David Gale was an anti death penalty advocate and high standing university professor who is convicted of murder of a fellow death penalty detractor and sentenced to die, the premace of the movie being that many people are executed who are actually innocent. I'm not going to ruin it for you so that's all I"m going to say on it. "A cry in the dark" is a true story of an australian couple who's infant daughter is allegedly killed by a dingo on a camping trip, the butchery of a trial and the false and sometimes hypothetical "facts" by specialists called in on the case to testify, as well as assumed physical evidence that was shoddily collected at the crime scene, lost, etc. The mother was sentenced to life in prison, and should she have been given the death penelty, she would have been executed by the state before she was finally redeemed and released 5 years later by the accidental finding of a crucial piece of evidence by park rangers.
Having lived down the street from the green river killer while he was still free (good thing I"m not a hooker), having driven to work daily by two of his last crime scenes, having grown up with him on the prowl and remembering the irrational fear of an unknown predator responsible for the largest killling spree in american history by one person, again my heart screams "kill him" but my brain knows better. Because it won't do anything to keep it from happening again. We'll be disposing of a man who's worst deeds are done, and were done, years ago. I'll pay to keep him in the hole, I have no problem with it, I do it for hundreds on every paycheck I get. I would rather see less comfy prisons and more programs that make them "earn their keep" and keep alive 100 real criminals than know that I supported the death of 1 innocent person.
|
Re: Capital Punishment: The Bloody Hands of the State
by Starlight (elenmea@hotmail.com)
on Dec 01, 2003 - 03:30 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.geocities.com/nony_one/index.html
|
When I was a lot younger, I was opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Then as I learned more about the world, I was able to see where it could have a place somewhere in the legal system. My feelings are still rather mixed in some cases, but I've pretty much come to terms with how I feel about it at this point.
I think that the death penalty should be carried out in cases where the person sentenced to death freely admits they committed the crime they were convicted of. In cases where the person claims they absolutely did not commit the crime, I think they should be given as long as necessary to prove they didn't do it. (Just in the off-chance that they were truly innocent and wrongly convicted.) If this means they end up serving a life sentence rather than being put to death, then so be it.
I have very mixed views on the whole insanity thing. It's possible for someone to have a psychotic break and commit the crime, but I'm inclined to think that would make it possible for it to happen again. In the case of alcohol or drugs being figured into a crime, while they did do the crime, they really weren't rational. There is also the possibility that the person is truly insane for the rest of their life. In those cases, where there are questions of how mentally intact the criminal was, I think a life sentence might be more fitting than a death sentence. I just think that while most people who are very interesting to be around are a bit insane (but it's a good kind of insanity...a fun kind...a weird kind...not a truly psychotic kind where they might snap and kill you kind), those who are criminally insane should not be running amok in society at large.
|
Bulletcatchers!!!
by Anya on Dec 01, 2003 - 07:02 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://kirashi.envy.nu
|
From what I understand, prisons are also getting full. It would probably be another reason why I'd go with the death penalty (I don't value human life as much as I used to). Another option would be people bulletcatching or serving in wars. Didn't they used to make criminals serve in wars?
|
Please forgive the inadequacy of my English...
by Arthegarn on Dec 01, 2003 - 08:45 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
(Please forgive the use of male pronouns only in this post. No offense intended.)
Hmh. Actually what is happening to the Guantanamo prisioners is an amazing example of how much the Unites States system of justice can be twisted, and to me is by far much more interesting than the Death penalty cases. From the ponit of wiew of the Science of Law it's one of the most beautiful and delicate tapestries ever done by that country. The ice is so thin in several parts... but it doesn't break, it's all arguably perfectly constitutional.
The US system of justice, as always happens with Common Law systems, is subject to potentially endless interpretations of too small and general laws. It happens with the killing methofs you talk about, for instance. The US Constitution states for instance that no man shall be put to "cruel or unusual punishment" or something like that. Well, that was written when an unusual punishment meant being burned on a stake, or the rack. It was written when flogging was NOT an inhuman punishment. But right now it has given room for interpretations that the founding fathers never bore in mind, such as not having a TV in your cell (hey, I'm serious). The methods by which death penalty is executed have to do with this amendment. Wonder what would have Washington thought if he had lost the war and had been denied a firing squad because it was "cruel" and had been poisoned instead...
Well, let's go on. Is it just to do this? Is is ust to do that? Now, I ask you : what is Justice? In Spain we lawyers don't study Law, we don't go to law school. The career is called "Derecho", which has a very bad translation to "Right", as in someone's rights, having the right to do something or doing what is right. It's not just laws, I took two years of Philosophy of the Right, in which I studied what great juridic minds had thought and said about what is Justice, what is Right, from Hammurabi to Kelsen, including the great Romans. And guess what, they don't seem to agree at all. Justice is an end on itself, it's not just a means, it's an End, even Plato saido so. I love Ulpianus's definition "Iustitia est constans at perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi" which roughly translates as "Justice is the constant and eternal will to give everyone that what is his".
Now, what is a murdeder's? Is it death? Can we naturally or logically conclude that to one who imposes death, death must come? NO, WE CAN'T. There are two basical theories about Penal Law and the purpose of punishment. One is called Retributive Justice, based in the Law of Talion, and holds a retibutive approach. He who hurts must be hurt in the same way with several objectives a) To show him that from ill comes ill b) As a conclusion from the former, to show him that he should not inflict ill on others c) To show others, in the way of example, that from ill comes ill d) As a conclusion from the former, to show others they should not inflict ill on others e) As a way to control and insure the offended's revenge (to some degree). Only in a system of retributive justice can the Death penalty have any place.
And even then, reasons a) through d) of the retributive system are not retaliatory in the end. THEY ARE EDUCATIONAL. Punisment is not inflicted by the sheer pleasure of it, it is inflicted with a purpose: to avoid further injustices. Paraphrasing "The Siege", Justice is not a club, it is a scapel. Now, are we REALLY getting anywhere with the death penalty?
Objective a) seems accomplished by the death penalty. Isn't it? Well, the guy who dies will certainly not go back to crminal activities but did he learn anything? Did he learn that what he did was wrong and why? Given the chance would he do it again? I don't think it's any good to him. he is most likely to believe that the System and the State and the Community are hypocritical as they are condemning him to Death. So that is good for some but bad for others?
Read the rest of this comment...
|
|
|