Death Penalty and Executions

[juliod]

Capital punishment frequently comes up as a topic of discussion in this forum. Typically, most people express dissatisfaction with the current system in the US. I'd like some comments on this proposal for reform.

There are usually two objections to the current system. Advocates of the death penalty think there are two many levels of appeal and that it takes too long and is too uncertain. Opponents complain that too many innocent people are convicted and that executions are often unnecessarily cruel.

My proposal is straightforward. It would be implements at the state level, where most executions take place. Basically it is composed to two provisions:

1) Prior to an execution, the Governor of the state must certify that the convict is in fact guilty and that execution is appropriate considering all the facts and compared to similar crimes. This duty would have to be done by the Governor personally and cannot be delegated.

2) The Governor of the state would personally carry out the execution. The Governor would have to personally operate the mechanism, the switch, button, or level than directly leads to death. The Governor must remain in full view of the prisoner until a pronouncement of death.

My goal is to increase the sense of personal responsability in capital cases. That is what I think is lacking, and what leads to all the problems with the death penalty. The governor is the Chief Executive, let them execute. That will be the motto of our movement.

Why are executions too cruel? It's because no one in actual authority is involved in them. They are carried out by anonymous prison officials who may be sadists in the first place. Even lethal injection, once thought to be a humane method, is now suspected of causing extreme pain and suffering in some, perhaps many, cases. If the Governor were doing the execution directly, they would want to be very sure that things were done right, if only for their own conscience.

Why are innocent people still being found on Death Row? It's because no one in actual authority actually cares. Judges, in my view, are a hopeless case. Politicians, OTOH, often need to make a posturing tough-on-crime stance. They would be less likely to ignore evidence of actual innocence if they had to personally and publicly state they they are convinced of the justice in this specific case. No more hiding behind a jury.

My plan would tie the chief executive more directly to the execution, both in decision and action. Since they would have no simple defense in case the convict were later shown to be innocent, the Governors would take these cases much more seriously and give them greater consideration (and not just whether it makes them look "tough").

Opponents of executions often seem frustrated that as the date of an impending execution comes up it is impossible to get anyone in authority to look at evidence of innocence. Governors won't meet with their representatives. Courts won't grant hearings. The problem is that often the evidence of innocence is quite convincing. If there were a high official who must tie his or her personal dignity, reputation, and honor to the guilt of the condemned, we would not have these issues.

I think if my proposal were implimented it would be very helpful in weeding out those miscarriages that plauge our capital system, and lead to a reduction in the need for multiple appeals and repeated rulings.

DanZ

[Cephus]

How you manage to take an extremely complex reality and boil it down into black/white is shocking.

No, the shocking part is the liberal whinefest that goes on whenever someone suggests that people take responsibility for their own lives. Guess I shouldn't have expected any more.

[MagusYanam]

No, the shocking part is the liberal whinefest that goes on whenever someone suggests that people take responsibility for their own lives. Guess I shouldn't have expected any more.

An atheist who knows how to preach. Life is just full of little surprises.

I would agree with you here, but for the fact that the people at whom you level the charge for irresponsibility are the ones who, in fact, do take responsibility for their own lives, and have to in order to live.

Whenever Paris Hilton or the George Bush or any Kennedy gets into trouble, they never take responsibility for their own lives. Why not? Because they can simply buy their way out of trouble. The less fortunate members of society are often the ones that do take responsibility for their own lives. I don't know how it is defensible to say that Paris Hilton, George Bush or any of the Kennedys are good societal role-models, even though they are members of the favoured few.

It's a simple fact that the poor breed outside of wedlock far more often than higher socio-economic strata, that the poor are more involved in drug use and alcohol abuse, that they are less educated, gang members, etc. It's also a fact that inside the so-called black culture, education is *NOT* a priority, nor is work, nor is personal responsibility. All of these things do keep them down, not because society has it's foot on their back, but because they've chained themselves to a self-imposed system that keeps them uneducated and untrained to get themselves out of poverty.

Okay, I think there is some merit in what you're saying here. So, instead of defending the death penalty and hacking at the tail of the serpent, we should aim for the head and push for educational reform. Massive educational reform, involving perhaps a complete overhaul of the public schooling system, especially in the major cities, and the professionalisation of primary education. If you want to cut crime, there's no better way than to not raise criminals.

Perhaps making an ethics course a required part of the primary school curriculum would make matters better, also.

Of course, the liberal mindset blames everyone else, it points fingers at society, it points fingers at the white male, it points fingers at everyone and everything except the people who need to get off their backsides and actually MAKE SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES! Nobody says it's easy, nobody says it won't be a challenge, but the simple fact of the matter is that they have the responsibility to put forth the effort and better themselves so that maybe their children might have a better life.

Second law of thermodynamics, friend. You can't make perfect order in an inherently entropic world. If you start in a high-entropy state (poverty), in order to get to a lower-entropy state takes massive amounts of work and, moreover, favourable conditions. It's easy to preach work to people in high-entropy conditions, but something else is required.

Is the white male directly to blame for the state of a poor black single mother? No. But the white male has a larger influence over the boundary conditions under which he works than the poor black single mother. This influence can bring about the freedom which the white male has to level the playing field for the poor black single mother, who hypothetically works just as hard for her living as does the white male. No liberal whining here - just statement of fact: the white males of society have it in their power to make conditions better for those less blessed. All things being equal, then, they should see their responsibilities to society as greater, not less.

[Cephus]

I would agree with you here, but for the fact that the people at whom you level the charge for irresponsibility are the ones who, in fact, do take responsibility for their own lives, and have to in order to live.

Except, of course, that they don't. Doing drugs is not taking responsibility for your own life. Living on welfare and refusing to work is not taking responsibility for your own life. Being a criminal is not taking responsibility for your own life. Dropping out of school and having 5 kids by 5 different fathers is not taking responsibility for your own life. Those are all things that are not only accepted, but somewhat expected in many poor communities.

Whenever Paris Hilton or the George Bush or any Kennedy gets into trouble, they never take responsibility for their own lives.

You're right, they don't. Certainly they should, but at least when they get in trouble, it isn't my tax money that goes to directly bail them out. I don't pay to directly support their irresponsibility.

Okay, I think there is some merit in what you're saying here. So, instead of defending the death penalty and hacking at the tail of the serpent, we should aim for the head and push for educational reform. Massive educational reform, involving perhaps a complete overhaul of the public schooling system, especially in the major cities, and the professionalisation of primary education. If you want to cut crime, there's no better way than to not raise criminals.

We should do both. The fact of the matter is that we'll never stop all crime no matter what we do. Criminals need to be severely punished, that will never change. We do need massive overhauls, not only to the school systems, but to the subcultures where crime is taught as a viable lifestyle.

Perhaps making an ethics course a required part of the primary school curriculum would make matters better, also.

There are a lot of things the education system does wrong now. They need to be teaching ethics and logic from a very early age. Instead of teaching kids that birth control solves all problems, they need to teach the very real consequences of premarital sex. They need to show what happens to you when you go down the path of crime and drugs and laziness. I think they need to scare the hell out of kids and make them absolutely fear that life.

Second law of thermodynamics, friend. You can't make perfect order in an inherently entropic world. If you start in a high-entropy state (poverty), in order to get to a lower-entropy state takes massive amounts of work and, moreover, favourable conditions. It's easy to preach work to people in high-entropy conditions, but something else is required.

Who is asking for perfect? The fact is, we should never just hand over money for nothing. Anyone receiving welfare, if they are physically able, should be required to work for it, even if it's picking up trash along the highway. Everyone on welfare should be required to get an education and job training. Welfare absolutely must be limited. You're on it for a certain period of time, then when you've been trained, you must make it on your own.

Of course, the liberals never want to hear that, they just want cradle-to-grave entitlements.

Is the white male directly to blame for the state of a poor black single mother?

Not in any way, shape or form.

But the white male has a larger influence over the boundary conditions under which he works than the poor black single mother.

Not really. The poor black single mother had a choice before she became a single mother to begin with. The poor black single mother had a choice before she dropped out of school. The poor black single mother had lots of choices, she just squandered them. Life is full of opportunities. It doesn't matter what your gender or skin color is, you either embrace them or you squander them.

[palmera]

Cephus,
Before responding to your post, I'd just like to emphasize the need for you to provide something, anything resembling evidence to support your currently unsubstantiated claims.

you wrote:

Except, of course, that they don't. Doing drugs is not taking responsibility for your own life. Living on welfare and refusing to work is not taking responsibility for your own life. Being a criminal is not taking responsibility for your own life. Dropping out of school and having 5 kids by 5 different fathers is not taking responsibility for your own life. Those are all things that are not only accepted, but somewhat expected in many poor communities.

You have many assumptions here that you do not address, and you speak in sweeping generalizations which makes me wonder whether you've actually taken care with what you've written. What is it about doing drugs that prevents one from taking responsibility for her/his life? Do you refer to all amounts of all drugs in general? Is the level of irresponsibility the same across the boards? Where's the line between being immature and irresponsible? Does one's knowledge of the drug/drugs in question matter? You do not take into account the many different circumstances surrounding drug use and abuse; why?

There are a lot of things the education system does wrong now. They need to be teaching ethics and logic from a very early age. Instead of teaching kids that birth control solves all problems, they need to teach the very real consequences of premarital sex. They need to show what happens to you when you go down the path of crime and drugs and laziness. I think they need to scare the hell out of kids and make them absolutely fear that life.

Indeed, ethics and logic classes should be offered; though you don't necessarily need those classes to teach one how to reason and live responsibly in society. Critical thought is important, and too often not a result from public school education. Y

Your juxtaposition of ethics/logic and sex-ed is strange. Can you evidence ONE sex-ed program in the nation that promotes birth control as a means to get laid problem free?

Most problematic for me is your education through fear plan. I guess the most glaring problem with it is that it contradicts your call for schools to teach student how to think critically. Scaring someone into acting straight does not help them or society. Not only is it cruel and unusual, but what happens when they lose their fears? (I'll bet you can guess.)


Also, and this relates to something you say later on in your post: I don't think your understand the need for a welfare state. While I agree that the goal of welfare is not to provide living expenses for someone indefinitely, we're not handing over money for nothing. More later on this.

Not really. The poor black single mother had a choice before she became a single mother to begin with. The poor black single mother had a choice before she dropped out of school. The poor black single mother had lots of choices, she just squandered them. Life is full of opportunities. It doesn't matter what your gender or skin color is, you either embrace them or you squander them.

Good Lord Cephus! Have you not thought about what those choices actually are? Have you not thought about how one's environment (i.e. level of education, income, housing, health etc..) impose certain restrictions on one's ability to choose? (and no, these restrictions are NOT the same for everybody)

Are you serious here? Let's think about this. The single mom's choice regarding motherhood:Well, sure, she didn't have to have sex. Of course she may not have known about contraception or that she could get an abortion. The condom may have broken. Oh yeah, then there's the whole single thing. I suppose she should have known what she was getting into right? Married or not, you just can't count on a man to stick with you, right?

Her choice regarding school: You're not considering the reality of your hypothetical "poor black single mother." Sure, we could start with "she had a choice about getting pregnant," but this position is cowardly, disrespectful, and irresponsible. So let's look at some possible choices she might have. Stay in school or a)pay rent b)take care of the child (in all that it entails) c) get money for food, for the doctor, for heating, electricity, water, gas. What you don't seem to realize is that folks don't usually drop out of school for no good reason. You also fail to understand the complexity of living a poor life. If one thing goes wrong, just one thing, the consequences can be devastating; and it's circular. Problems compound and cause a reoccurrence.

"She just squandered them." Unbelievable. Do you make even the slightest effort to understand the social problems of the country you live in or are you too self-righteous for such petty concerns as the plight of the marginalized on whose back we all live comfortably?

[dudleysharp]

Professor Bailey is now aware that this was a public post has given permission to post his reply. Notjing had been changed.

February 1, 2007

To: The Person who Chastened Me
in E-mail to Dudley Sharpe

Greetings:

Your (anonymous) remarks concerning my volume on capital punishment have been forwarded to me by Dudley Sharpe. I am sending my response to him and he has my permission to forward it to you.

Ordinarily, I do not respond to criticisms from persons who are innocent of the topic of which they speak (especially when worded in the condescending tone which your remarks seem to have). In this case, however, I am making a rare exception.

Let's start with you remark that no "intellectually honest Biblical scholar can start any sentence with The Bible clearly asserts X'." The reason, you say, is that the Bible is an anthology. You know, in the twelve years of college and graduate education that I have attained, I just might have come across that idea! Thank you, however, for pointing it out! Nonetheless, anthology or not, nowhere in the totality is there a stance in opposition to capital punishment, so my statement stands. Betcha I can list a vast number of things that are affirmed throughout the anthology and thus that "the Bible clearly asserts." Let's start with the simple assertion that it is theistic throughout, Genesis to Revelation. An intellectually dishonest statement, according to you! Please!!

It is pointless for you to state that the Mosaic writings prescribe retributive justice"...but modern Christians are not, by and large, tribal nomads." I just might have encountered that contrast, too (or do you really think that, as a graduate of what is arguably the best school of Hebrew and Cognate Studies in the country, I am an ignoramus?) The point that I made remains, since nowhere do the New Testament writers disagree. (By the way, the Hebrew verb "razah" (as you spelled it) means "to be lean, weak" whereas you meant (as well as I can do it on this typewriter) ratsach, "to commit murder. (I will overlook that as a mere transliteration problem.)

You suggest that the "Mosaic dietary strictures...were most likely originally kept to maintain basic hygiene among the nomadic Hebrews." [An irrelevant point, in any case.] This tells me that your reading on the subject is nearly a century out-of-date, since that idea originated with Classical Liberalism in the early 20th century, where the attempt was made to make the Bible intelligible to the supposedly rational modern mind. All knowledgeable scholars of Ancient Near Eastern Literature have long ago given up such quaint nonsense. Not even the early Fathers of the Church propose that! I will not even bother to acquaint you with the real issues. (I would wager that you belong to a "main line Protestant" Church or are a secular humanist who is really angry at anyone who favors capital punishment. Well, you should have noticed the strictures that I placed on using the Bible on that side of the argument, too!)

It is really amusing when you cite the case of Jesus' response to the woman caught in adultery (John 8) as a possible contrast to a demand for capital punishment. That rudimentary mistake was dealt with in my book at pp. 68-73 (You should read it sometime), which ended by my citing the supporting opinion of the Johannine scholar whom academicians regard as the greatest modern authority.

My book has been read with approval by such a wide spectrum as well known "conservative" clergyman Charles Ryrie and major "liberal" scholars throughout the country. So, you should not be too confident in your isolated condescending attitude!

With well wishes,

"This Lloyd Bailey Fellow"

[MagusYanam]

Firstly to Dudley Sharpe:

The purpose of this forum is for all members to argue and defend their own opinions and positions on issues pertaining to religion. If you wish to offer Lloyd Bailey the opportunity to post on this forum, by all means, do so - he sounds like a very interesting fellow to chat with, if a little highblown (an unfortunate tendency I sometimes have as well).

But I must confess I have little interest in discussing the issue with him via a proxy. If you cannot defend your own beliefs with regard to the death penalty (or anything else!), then I would suggest channeling your energies into something a little more productive.

And now to Lloyd Bailey:

I have said so once and I will say so again - I am not a capital-punishment abolitionist. I believe that the death penalty may occasionally be an unavoidable necessity, and it is certainly not one of my 'hot-button' issues. Keep this in mind before you start up the ad hominems about my supposed secular-humanism with an anti-DP agenda.

Your sarcasm aside, I have no doubt about your academic credentials nor your commitment to the scholarly pursuits. Perhaps, then, you may wish to clarify your word choice a little bit to show a little epistemological humility - instead of 'the Bible clearly asserts x', perhaps 'within the Scriptures there is a strong, consistent argument for x' would be more appropriate to your scholastic background. I am a philosophy major and thus a semantic nitpicker - I would ask you to do no less for me.

Speaking of nitpicking, although Hebrew may not be a second language to me (my transliteration being through Chinese pin yin - you have every right to nitpick it to your satisfaction), I trust you have no problems with my translation, having taken the meaning directly from Strong's - 'to dash to pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), esp. to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-)slay(-er), murder(-er)'. Obviously, not a straightforward word to translate into English. If you want to offer a counter-stipulation, by all means, go ahead. It is a public forum and access is free of charge. But you will have to offer reasons, not citations to a book to which we don't all have access (unless you are certain enough of your international popularity to guarantee that I'll find one in Beijing's Wangfujing district).

As for my point about dietary strictures and other Mosaic laws, I would simply ask that you reread the Gospel - whether in Koine or in English, I don't think it matters overmuch. The Mosaic laws state 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life'. But Jesus did not tell his followers 'a cheek for a cheek', rather 'if anyone strikes you on the right jaw, turn to him the other as well'. Moses taught his people that good must be requited with good and evil requited with retribution. Jesus taught that good must be requited with good and evil with love and forgiveness. I note that you completely ignored my point about the Matthew quote 'me nomisete oti elthon katalusai ton nomon e tous prophetas: ouk elthon katalusai alla plerosai' - plerosai here meaning 'to fulfil' or 'to make complete'. Remember that the Pharisees in ancient Judea were legal hard-liners. I believe that your statement to the effect that Jesus was a legalistic hard-liner is erroneous: he chastises the Pharisees for being too legalistic, for tacking precisely to the letter of the law while failing to uphold the spirit.

My issue is not with the death penalty per se. My issue is with the use of the death penalty as an instrument of vengeance, which seems to be the attitude of so many of its supporters today, like the Pharisees who wished to stone the adulterous woman. And there are multiple verses, Old and New Testament, that decry the human pursuit of vengeance, warning them that vengeance is the property of God and God alone.

If I sounded condescending and offended you in any way, please accept my apologies - my attitude at the time was indeed far from the Christian ideal. I have little patience for those who plagiarise or use as their own entire arguments from other (even cited!) sources (which I'm sure, as an academician yourself, you are able to respect), and Mr Sharpe was using your quotes wholesale while providing extremely little independent justification for his beliefs.

Your book does sound interesting, even though I may not agree with many of your points, and I shall be sure to look into it when next I get the chance (which may not be for another few months).

Sincerely,

That Anonymous Guy

[Cephus]

Are you serious here? Let's think about this. The single mom's choice regarding motherhood:Well, sure, she didn't have to have sex. Of course she may not have known about contraception or that she could get an abortion. The condom may have broken. Oh yeah, then there's the whole single thing. I suppose she should have known what she was getting into right? Married or not, you just can't count on a man to stick with you, right?

There are some choices that, once made, cannot be unmade and have a profound effect on the rest of your life. This is one of them. Simply because there may have been mitigating circumstances doesn't mean that there aren't options. You're trying to make excuses for irresponsible behavior.

Sure, we could start with "she had a choice about getting pregnant," but this position is cowardly, disrespectful, and irresponsible.

There's nothing cowardly, disrespectful or irresponsible about it. In fact, all of those words clearly describe the act of becoming pregnant when you cannot afford to have the child in the first place.

"She just squandered them." Unbelievable. Do you make even the slightest effort to understand the social problems of the country you live in or are you too self-righteous for such petty concerns as the plight of the marginalized on whose back we all live comfortably?

I understand the social problems but I also understand the underlying reasons *WHY* we have them and why we *CONTINUE* to have them. Simply shrugging your shoulders and pretending they're never going to go away is foolish. The only way to ensure that the situation improves is to take away the impetus to keep the problem going generation after generation. Poor single mothers breed poor single mothers because they have no reason whatsoever to teach their children to do better, and the bleeding-heart liberals are horrified at the thought that we ought to tell anyone that what they're doing is stupid and wrong.

It is stupid and wrong. Someone needs to deal with reality and let them know so.

[MagusYanam]

I understand the social problems but I also understand the underlying reasons *WHY* we have them and why we *CONTINUE* to have them. Simply shrugging your shoulders and pretending they're never going to go away is foolish. The only way to ensure that the situation improves is to take away the impetus to keep the problem going generation after generation. Poor single mothers breed poor single mothers because they have no reason whatsoever to teach their children to do better, and the bleeding-heart liberals are horrified at the thought that we ought to tell anyone that what they're doing is stupid and wrong.

It is stupid and wrong. Someone needs to deal with reality and let them know so.

Okay then. Just remember this the next time a 'bleeding-heart' liberal puts forward an improved sex-education programme and all the conservatives shoot it down because it asks kids to think for themselves instead of force-feeding them an abstinence-only message (even though in a lot of liberal sex-ed programmes abstinence is put forward as the most favourable option for young people). The only way to break this cycle of poverty and poor choices is better education - the death penalty teaches the poor nothing about justice. It is a poor substitute, if it is indeed a substitute at all.

Oh yeah, one more thing:

You're right, they [George Bush, Paris Hilton et al.] don't. Certainly they should, but at least when they get in trouble, it isn't my tax money that goes to directly bail them out. I don't pay to directly support their irresponsibility.

You're kidding, right? I hope for your sake that you are, because a good huge chunk of our tax burden now is paying for a war that is the direct consequence of one particular stupid rich white man's lack of responsibility.

A poor person lacks responsibility and it ruins their life. A rich person lacks responsibility and it can ruin a whole bunch of people's lives. Take a look at the executive decisions of General Motors, the auto unions, Enron, Adelphia et cetera, and tell me honestly, if you can, that you think poor people are the root cause of all these problems.

[Cephus]

Okay then. Just remember this the next time a 'bleeding-heart' liberal puts forward an improved sex-education programme and all the conservatives shoot it down because it asks kids to think for themselves instead of force-feeding them an abstinence-only message (even though in a lot of liberal sex-ed programmes abstinence is put forward as the most favourable option for young people). The only way to break this cycle of poverty and poor choices is better education - the death penalty teaches the poor nothing about justice. It is a poor substitute, if it is indeed a substitute at all.

I'll be the first one telling them that abstinence-only programs don't work, but then again, telling kids that sex is fine so long as you have a condom is just as stupid. There's a middle ground that says here are the consequences, here are the ways to minimize the consequences, the only way to completely eliminate the consequences is abstinence, but there are things you can do to lower your risk if you choose not to take that route, etc.

And the death penalty teaches the poor everything about justice. It teaches that actions have consequences. That's a lesson that a lot of people, rich and poor, really need to learn.

[palmera]

cephus wrote

And the death penalty teaches the poor everything about justice. It teaches that actions have consequences. That's a lesson that a lot of people, rich and poor, really need to learn.

If this were true, then why do the poor dominate death row. Can you point to any evidence that shows the death penalty is a good deterrent of violent crime? You may be unaware of the numerous studies showing that in fact, the death penalty is not a good deterrent. Further, if you do some research I think you'll see the irony of your statement. The death penalty does teach the poor everything about justice, because it gives them first hand experience with how unjust our judicial system actually is.

There are some choices that, once made, cannot be unmade and have a profound effect on the rest of your life. This is one of them. Simply because there may have been mitigating circumstances doesn't mean that there aren't options. You're trying to make excuses for irresponsible behavior.

Setting aside the issue of education, what you're doing here is holding poor people to a higher standard of accountability than everyone else. The choices they make affect their lives in ways the rich cannot understand. Money solves most of the problems of life, whether by chance or bad decision making. You'll find that there is a staggering lack of options afforded to those without money or a white face here in America.

There's nothing cowardly, disrespectful or irresponsible about it. In fact, all of those words clearly describe the act of becoming pregnant when you cannot afford to have the child in the first place.

Yes, there is, and it's rooted in your refusal to deal in reality. Theoretical condemnations that are fundamentally separated from the complex reality of the issues we're dealing with is cowardly, disrespectful and irresponsible.

The only way to ensure that the situation improves is to take away the impetus to keep the problem going generation after generation. Poor single mothers breed poor single mothers because they have no reason whatsoever to teach their children to do better, and the bleeding-heart liberals are horrified at the thought that we ought to tell anyone that what they're doing is stupid and wrong.

Well, as a well educated son of a poor single mother, I'll have to disagree with you on this point. Poor single mothers have EVERY reason to teach their children to do better because they love them. What mother doesn't want a good life for her children? By the way, where are you getting your facts? So far, you've been assuming much without backing it up at all.