Hey what do you know...
Oct. 3rd, 2006 04:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_kerinaThe modem is on life support for another day...or so...
So I can post my essay on the death penalty, rough draft and questions answered.
The Fatal Risk of the Death Penalty
The government makes a multitude of decisions which affect society and our lives. But treasured in the Declaration of Independence is the notion “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Governments built upon those edicts have no business in the process of life or death for any Americans. The death penalty should be abolished because, combined with errors and bias in the justice system, it poses too high a risk of taking innocent lives.
The death penalty is often presented as a spectacle, covered by various media sources. As a spectacle, it lures a variety of people on both sides who come to both decry and support it. It makes a mockery of life with “whoops of elation” following the act by some (Barnet and Bedau 564). With such irreverent displays, one has to wonder if a life has ended or a football game.
Those who come to executions or watch them on the news have as much disconnection with the physical act as a soldier firing a smart bomb. Even those who perform it just give a quiet injection or flip a switch. Death has been sanitized and made proper for public viewing.
For an act so perfected by the state, the act of getting the sentence is mired in problems. Consider the case of Lenell Jeter. He was wrongfully accused of a robbery but had his situation and circumstances changed but a fraction then he would’ve been put to death, an innocent man. And the absence of evidence would not have saved him from the electric chair (Barnet and Bedau 564).
The question of whether this one man would’ve been a fluke incident, is unknown. In cases of executions, the ultimate guilt or innocence of prisoners carries a degree of unresolved questions.
Among a list convicted murders in the state of South Carolina where error or doubt of guilt exists, there are 400 cases and an unknowable degree of execution cases among them (Barnet and Bedau 565). But even if only one perfect resulted in execution, that’s still four potential innocent lives taken by the state.
The will of arbitrary, symbolic retribution drives most death penalty cases and presents an unknown clouding of the will of the people as angry masses clamoring for a pound of flesh (Barnet and Bedau 565).
Consider the case of Alvin Ford, who was convicted of killing a cop. Short of molesting and murdering children, no other act carries as much passion for vengeance within the law-enforcement community. No other act is considered as heinous. But death cannot be passed out generically in even these most brutal crimes. Alvin Ford was and still is mentally-ill due to his long confinement. If the Florida Supreme Court had not barred his conviction then the State would have murdered a man who had no understanding of what was going on. It could well have committed a crime equal to murdering a child, all for the passion of the community driving the need to avenge an injustice (Barnet and Bedau 564).
These communal factors will tint the punishment that any given crime will warrant. Consider the case of Ernest Knighton. The crime he committed, while terrible, rarely merited a punishment of death. Looking at the other factors in Knighton’s case, clear signs of discrimination emerge beginning with his race, a jury not of his peers, and a counselor not on his side (Barnet and Bedau 565).
He was put to death when anyone else who committed the exact same crime would’ve been placed in prison for life. The inconsistency in his punishment speaks to the fallibility of justice in the face of social factors.
Those social pressures establish a connection between death as punishment setting an example for other criminals, which, the logic follows, would in turn saves lives. But this connection doesn’t work.
In the state of Florida, the year homicides declined significantly, there were no executions to keep murders in line and the year Florida put the most people to death in the country, homicides were at the highest level in decades (Barnet and Bedau 566). If logic went by these numbers, then death only spurns more death so far as executions are concerned.
Harry Blackmun notes that the “constitutional goal of eliminating arbitariness and discrimination” is at opposition with the power given “the State” and district attorneys to pursue sentences for purely personal reasons. The equity of “individualized sentencing” is fatally-compromised (Barnet and Bedau 577). Fairness and equally for all lies at the heart of the reinstatement of the death penalty. Without this basis precept, the administration of the death penalty has no place in society.
The pronouncement of death must especially take into account the situation of the sentenced when their life is on the line. Ideally, the court has the appellate system to ensure that Constitutional rights are served. Also, death cases often take many years to finally be carried out.
Harry Blackmum notes the flaws developing and growing in the system which render the procedural corrections not quite as effective as they would be otherwise. He notes they are “conceding fairness and rationality” cannot be balanced in the cases of the death penalty. Instead, there are mechanisms to “deregulate” in place. He claims, instead of clear constitutional procedure, the highest Court in the land has replaced those rights with “mere aesthetics” and turned its eye from making sure the system runs fairly (Barnet and Bedau 578).
Left to follow their own definitions and procedures of death, a single State system is given the power and will to decide the life or death of any one of their citizens. Consider if a crime was committed for which race became entwined, one not all that dissimilar from the one presented in the movie Green Mile, for instance. Say two children were brutally murdered. Society, as one, would rally against any such act and any person accused of such a crime, even if the evidence is flimsy. Recently, the case emerged of someone claiming to have raped and murdered the victim in the Jon Benet Ramsey case. His story was eventually found to be a complete fabrication, for reasons unknown. But his presence presents questions of those who want to die by the state for crimes they didn’t commit, those with a certain degree of mental illness.
The power vested in the government is great but so far the risks. This power is rightly checked by the insight and proclamations of the forefathers of America. The death penalty is one such instance of power which can corrupt and twist the laws of the land. The choice to give death is too much responsibility for any government, especially since it, like society, is composed of flawed human beings.
Words Cited
Blackmum, Harry. “Dissenting Opinion in Callins v Collins” (1994). S. Barnet & H. Bedau (Eds.). Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Sixth Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2002.
Bruck, D. “The Death Penalty” (1985). S. Barnet & H. Bedau (Eds.). Current Issues and
Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Sixth Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2002.
1. My position on the death penalty, like is expressed in Blackmum's dissenting opinion, is contingent on the individuality of each case presented. But I feel that the death penalty must only be given where the risk of an individual to society at large is too high or their cost overall is too much to be withstood. Someone who has a medical/mental inclination to murder and can't direct their impulses elsewhere should be heavily rehabilitated by the state. In the cases where even this fails, only then should the death penalty enter into the equation. I agree with the death penalty in the case of proven terrorists who will kill again, cannibals or particular reconcilable crimes against society and humanity. But I disagree with the way murders are put down. It's far too humane. Those who want to kill a human being should do so with as much suffering of the subject as possible. What sort of message does it send that even if you commit such heinous crimes, then your death will be nice and pleasant? I'd prefer that instead of a lethal injection, that the convicted would be strapped down and the family of the victim or victims would appoint someone to physically strangle the convicted to death or slowly slice their veins and bleed them out. Taking a life is far too sterilized. It needs to have restored some semblance of the gravity of what is done. It needs equal depravity to the act the criminal committed to be considered a deterrent or equalizer to society. If these specific criteria for administration of the death penalty are followed, then I’d be fully willing to endorse, otherwise it’s just hypocritical nonsense with no real meaning beyond political self-serving.
2. My position has been illuminated by reading the casebook. I used to think I was very much a pacifist with regard to the death penalty, that not a single death was allowable. Despite the fact I wrote in that vein in my paper, my own personal opinion has shifted. One particular reading that influenced me was the work by Bruck, which was my favorite article in the entire casebook. Bruck showed numerous cases where doubt and personal bias cloud the effective prosecution of a case. Race and situation weight heavily and influence the public’s mind and a defendant sometimes cannot receive a fair judgment. I knew this always existed somewhat but Bruck illuminated the prevalence of this bias. More than that though, I was struck by the numbers given in the article. First, how 400 cases were shown to be in doubt and who-knows-how-many of those resulting in death and how Florida has shown, at best, no correlation between executions and murder rate and, at worst, an inverse correlation. These figures, more than anything else, led me to see that executions do not deter crime in their current form. I considered that death led to more death but I ultimately learned from this that the application of the death penalty was improper and wrung free of the gravity it ought to possess.
3. I found the work by Helen Prejean interesting for numerous reasons. I’d heard of “Dead Man Walking” a long time ago, so the figures involved were immediately familiar to me. I enjoyed her display of Biblical texts to prove her point while acknowledging she was using her own degree of “biblical quarterbacking” even when pointing out particular nuances. It was illuminating to consider the ways which the death penalty has been applied throughout history. I was intrigued by her argument, but as I reread it, I came to the conclusion that I didn’t buy her reasons for dismissing the death penalty. Her reasons are built on moralizing guilt of our American special standards. I do believes that moral questions she poses are valid but an outright dismissal of the options limits the means by which we can address heinous crimes.
Notes Bruck - www.faulkner.edu/admin/websites/cwarmack/bruck.pdf
Prejean - can't find but search for "Executions Too Costly - Morally" by Helen Prejean.
So I can post my essay on the death penalty, rough draft and questions answered.
The Fatal Risk of the Death Penalty
The government makes a multitude of decisions which affect society and our lives. But treasured in the Declaration of Independence is the notion “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Governments built upon those edicts have no business in the process of life or death for any Americans. The death penalty should be abolished because, combined with errors and bias in the justice system, it poses too high a risk of taking innocent lives.
The death penalty is often presented as a spectacle, covered by various media sources. As a spectacle, it lures a variety of people on both sides who come to both decry and support it. It makes a mockery of life with “whoops of elation” following the act by some (Barnet and Bedau 564). With such irreverent displays, one has to wonder if a life has ended or a football game.
Those who come to executions or watch them on the news have as much disconnection with the physical act as a soldier firing a smart bomb. Even those who perform it just give a quiet injection or flip a switch. Death has been sanitized and made proper for public viewing.
For an act so perfected by the state, the act of getting the sentence is mired in problems. Consider the case of Lenell Jeter. He was wrongfully accused of a robbery but had his situation and circumstances changed but a fraction then he would’ve been put to death, an innocent man. And the absence of evidence would not have saved him from the electric chair (Barnet and Bedau 564).
The question of whether this one man would’ve been a fluke incident, is unknown. In cases of executions, the ultimate guilt or innocence of prisoners carries a degree of unresolved questions.
Among a list convicted murders in the state of South Carolina where error or doubt of guilt exists, there are 400 cases and an unknowable degree of execution cases among them (Barnet and Bedau 565). But even if only one perfect resulted in execution, that’s still four potential innocent lives taken by the state.
The will of arbitrary, symbolic retribution drives most death penalty cases and presents an unknown clouding of the will of the people as angry masses clamoring for a pound of flesh (Barnet and Bedau 565).
Consider the case of Alvin Ford, who was convicted of killing a cop. Short of molesting and murdering children, no other act carries as much passion for vengeance within the law-enforcement community. No other act is considered as heinous. But death cannot be passed out generically in even these most brutal crimes. Alvin Ford was and still is mentally-ill due to his long confinement. If the Florida Supreme Court had not barred his conviction then the State would have murdered a man who had no understanding of what was going on. It could well have committed a crime equal to murdering a child, all for the passion of the community driving the need to avenge an injustice (Barnet and Bedau 564).
These communal factors will tint the punishment that any given crime will warrant. Consider the case of Ernest Knighton. The crime he committed, while terrible, rarely merited a punishment of death. Looking at the other factors in Knighton’s case, clear signs of discrimination emerge beginning with his race, a jury not of his peers, and a counselor not on his side (Barnet and Bedau 565).
He was put to death when anyone else who committed the exact same crime would’ve been placed in prison for life. The inconsistency in his punishment speaks to the fallibility of justice in the face of social factors.
Those social pressures establish a connection between death as punishment setting an example for other criminals, which, the logic follows, would in turn saves lives. But this connection doesn’t work.
In the state of Florida, the year homicides declined significantly, there were no executions to keep murders in line and the year Florida put the most people to death in the country, homicides were at the highest level in decades (Barnet and Bedau 566). If logic went by these numbers, then death only spurns more death so far as executions are concerned.
Harry Blackmun notes that the “constitutional goal of eliminating arbitariness and discrimination” is at opposition with the power given “the State” and district attorneys to pursue sentences for purely personal reasons. The equity of “individualized sentencing” is fatally-compromised (Barnet and Bedau 577). Fairness and equally for all lies at the heart of the reinstatement of the death penalty. Without this basis precept, the administration of the death penalty has no place in society.
The pronouncement of death must especially take into account the situation of the sentenced when their life is on the line. Ideally, the court has the appellate system to ensure that Constitutional rights are served. Also, death cases often take many years to finally be carried out.
Harry Blackmum notes the flaws developing and growing in the system which render the procedural corrections not quite as effective as they would be otherwise. He notes they are “conceding fairness and rationality” cannot be balanced in the cases of the death penalty. Instead, there are mechanisms to “deregulate” in place. He claims, instead of clear constitutional procedure, the highest Court in the land has replaced those rights with “mere aesthetics” and turned its eye from making sure the system runs fairly (Barnet and Bedau 578).
Left to follow their own definitions and procedures of death, a single State system is given the power and will to decide the life or death of any one of their citizens. Consider if a crime was committed for which race became entwined, one not all that dissimilar from the one presented in the movie Green Mile, for instance. Say two children were brutally murdered. Society, as one, would rally against any such act and any person accused of such a crime, even if the evidence is flimsy. Recently, the case emerged of someone claiming to have raped and murdered the victim in the Jon Benet Ramsey case. His story was eventually found to be a complete fabrication, for reasons unknown. But his presence presents questions of those who want to die by the state for crimes they didn’t commit, those with a certain degree of mental illness.
The power vested in the government is great but so far the risks. This power is rightly checked by the insight and proclamations of the forefathers of America. The death penalty is one such instance of power which can corrupt and twist the laws of the land. The choice to give death is too much responsibility for any government, especially since it, like society, is composed of flawed human beings.
Words Cited
Blackmum, Harry. “Dissenting Opinion in Callins v Collins” (1994). S. Barnet & H. Bedau (Eds.). Current Issues and Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Sixth Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2002.
Bruck, D. “The Death Penalty” (1985). S. Barnet & H. Bedau (Eds.). Current Issues and
Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument, with Readings. Sixth Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2002.
1. My position on the death penalty, like is expressed in Blackmum's dissenting opinion, is contingent on the individuality of each case presented. But I feel that the death penalty must only be given where the risk of an individual to society at large is too high or their cost overall is too much to be withstood. Someone who has a medical/mental inclination to murder and can't direct their impulses elsewhere should be heavily rehabilitated by the state. In the cases where even this fails, only then should the death penalty enter into the equation. I agree with the death penalty in the case of proven terrorists who will kill again, cannibals or particular reconcilable crimes against society and humanity. But I disagree with the way murders are put down. It's far too humane. Those who want to kill a human being should do so with as much suffering of the subject as possible. What sort of message does it send that even if you commit such heinous crimes, then your death will be nice and pleasant? I'd prefer that instead of a lethal injection, that the convicted would be strapped down and the family of the victim or victims would appoint someone to physically strangle the convicted to death or slowly slice their veins and bleed them out. Taking a life is far too sterilized. It needs to have restored some semblance of the gravity of what is done. It needs equal depravity to the act the criminal committed to be considered a deterrent or equalizer to society. If these specific criteria for administration of the death penalty are followed, then I’d be fully willing to endorse, otherwise it’s just hypocritical nonsense with no real meaning beyond political self-serving.
2. My position has been illuminated by reading the casebook. I used to think I was very much a pacifist with regard to the death penalty, that not a single death was allowable. Despite the fact I wrote in that vein in my paper, my own personal opinion has shifted. One particular reading that influenced me was the work by Bruck, which was my favorite article in the entire casebook. Bruck showed numerous cases where doubt and personal bias cloud the effective prosecution of a case. Race and situation weight heavily and influence the public’s mind and a defendant sometimes cannot receive a fair judgment. I knew this always existed somewhat but Bruck illuminated the prevalence of this bias. More than that though, I was struck by the numbers given in the article. First, how 400 cases were shown to be in doubt and who-knows-how-many of those resulting in death and how Florida has shown, at best, no correlation between executions and murder rate and, at worst, an inverse correlation. These figures, more than anything else, led me to see that executions do not deter crime in their current form. I considered that death led to more death but I ultimately learned from this that the application of the death penalty was improper and wrung free of the gravity it ought to possess.
3. I found the work by Helen Prejean interesting for numerous reasons. I’d heard of “Dead Man Walking” a long time ago, so the figures involved were immediately familiar to me. I enjoyed her display of Biblical texts to prove her point while acknowledging she was using her own degree of “biblical quarterbacking” even when pointing out particular nuances. It was illuminating to consider the ways which the death penalty has been applied throughout history. I was intrigued by her argument, but as I reread it, I came to the conclusion that I didn’t buy her reasons for dismissing the death penalty. Her reasons are built on moralizing guilt of our American special standards. I do believes that moral questions she poses are valid but an outright dismissal of the options limits the means by which we can address heinous crimes.
Notes Bruck - www.faulkner.edu/admin/websites/cwarmack/bruck.pdf
Prejean - can't find but search for "Executions Too Costly - Morally" by Helen Prejean.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-04 02:13 am (UTC)