Monday, December 05, 2011

"What say you?"

On the 29th of last month I sent this to my kids with the query attached:
"What say you?"
A Response to Oregon's Governor on Capital Punishment
Tuesday, November 29, 2011

The governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber, announced last week that he would not allow any more executions in his state during his time in office.

Kitzhaber, a Democrat, gave five reasons for his decision. My response follows each one.

1. "I refuse to be part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer."

This has become one of the most frequently offered reasons for objecting to capital punishment -- that because the system is not equitable, no murderer should be put to death.

This is a reason that is devoid of reason. If a system is not equitable, you don't end the system, you try to end what is not equitable. This is classic left-wing thinking -- destroy what is good if it is imperfect. Documentary-maker Michael Moore was recently on CNN with Anderson Cooper and provided a perfect example of this way of thinking.

Moore: "2011 capitalism is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many."

Cooper: "So, what system do you want?"

Moore: "Well, there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system."

The utopian streak that is an essential part of the left-wing mind is puerile and destructive: "If it isn't perfect, eliminate it."

2. "I do not believe that those executions (the two that the governor allowed) made us safer."

We all acknowledge that two executions do not make us safer (though they do make it safer for prison guards and for other inmates). Who ever said two executions would make us safer? Overwhelmingly, the reason people give for supporting the death penalty is justice. It is indescribably unjust to allow everyone who deliberately takes a human life to keep his own.

But if you want to talk safety, then yes, we who support the death penalty are certain that, applied with any consistency, it is a deterrent. The late sociologist Ernest van den Haag had an interesting thought experiment. Suppose that murders committed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays carried a death sentence, while those committed on the other days were punishable by a prison sentence. On which days do you suppose more murders would be committed?

The notion that parking tickets deter illegal parking but that death does not deter murder is truly irrational. It shows what happens when people put ideology over common sense.

3. "Certainly I don't believe (the executions of murderers) made us more noble as a society."

Why is it noble to keep all murderers alive? Was Israel less noble for executing Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust? When two men enter the home of a family of four; rape the wife and two young daughters; beat all four nearly to death, leaving them in the agony of crushed bones and skulls; and then tie them up and burn the three females to death, why is it "noble" to keep the men who did that alive?

4. Oregon has an "unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice."

Opponents of the death penalty make it virtually impossible to execute murderers. They then lament how long and laborious the effort is to execute a murderer.

5. "... And I simply cannot participate in something I believe morally wrong."

Opponents of the death penalty simply assert the death penalty is immoral. That is their prerogative. But "morally wrong" in this context means nothing more than "I don't like it." Indeed, as reported in the The New York Times, "Asked with whom (Kitzhaber) had consulted, he said, 'Mostly myself.'"

Kitzhaber's moratorium delays the execution of a murderer who had raped and brutally beaten to death a woman named Mary Archer. Needless to say, the family and friends of Mary Archer disagree with the governor's action.

"We are just plain devastated," said the man who had been Mary Archer's husband. "This is such a miscarriage of justice."

Indeed it is. And worse. Societies that allow all murderers to live have lost some of their hunger for justice and certainly lost their hatred of evil. They also cheapen the crime of murder. Punishment is society's way of communicating how serious it views a crime, and there is all the difference in the world between the death penalty and life (not to mention less time) in prison.

When all murderers are allowed to live, the evil exult while the victims weep. Why is that noble?
Got a reply back today, following:
My support for capital punishment has waned significantly in the last few years to the point that I would support it being abolished. Of course, I would leave it to the states. But if it came up for a vote, yes, I would vote to abolish it and move to life imprisonment without parole.

As for my reasons, I look to the consensus among economists that putting someone to death costs the state (and taxpayer) significantly more than life imprisonment when all factors are considered (i.e. litigation, cost of holding someone on death row vs. regular prison, etc.). However, perhaps most importantly, I just know that our system makes mistakes. Innocent men and women have been put to death. And that is an unacceptable cost for me.

In the end, I just don't think its a good system, especially given the chance for innocent people being improperly punished. I don't think we as a society need to kill an offender in order to mete out justice. But the idea of justice is different for everybody. Some people are willing to allow the death of a few innocent people in their quest for justice. In this instance, I'm just not one of them.

Love you, and your thoughts as always are appreciated.
To which I offered the following reply:
I saw this piece about more than the Death Penalty. Which (FYI) I only support until such time as there is true Life without Parole available. Suppose that is due to seeing murderers being paroled and then killing again. When the death penalty is applied we can be sure the convicted will murder no more and that society is safe as least from that one person.

Twas sent more to reflect on what I see and believe is a liberal bias towards engineering social betterment and a personal and long held belief in the inability of government to effect it. To the extent I believe equality is a right bestowed by our Creator and afforded by one another to one another rather than to be enforced by a political system. Does government have an obligation to care for its disenfranchised citizens? Absolutely. Does it have an obligation to provide them rights equal to those who are more fortunate? Absolutely again. BUT, does government have the obligation to afford them the same standards of living as those who have worked to better themselves (or whose fore bearers did so for them before their time)? Nope!

If you study genealogical history you find most everyone started at the bottom of the ladder somewhere along the line and then made a choice to better themselves. Hispanic and Asian cultures would seem an example of that ethic in our current time. I've attached a copy of what I said when you got your Eagle Award. Feel like it's still true, everyone gots to pay their dues.



Post a Comment

<< Home