3 Comments »

1. So, sadly I am against Capital punishment…not because I think it is wrong. I am against capital punishment because I believe it does not work.

   There are no studies showing any decrease in the rate of crimes that warrant the death penalty since it was reinstated.

   Also it is inefficient. The cost of killing a criminal is exponentially higher than the cost of keeping a criminal in prison for life. These costs come from the many appeals which are REQUIRED in a capital trial.

   In a perfect world Capital punishment would work…well in a perfect world it wouldn’t be needed but that is beside the point… Capital punishment is just too inefficient and ineffective…it’s unrealistic.

   Comment by Aaron — December 2, 2005 @ 12:59 pm

2. Did you all see those numbers???

   Damn, that’s why you “Don’t mess with Texas”!

   Maybe they have made them efficient in Texas. Shit they gotta have an assembly line goin and shit to have production like that!

   Note to self: Never Go To Texas!!!

   Comment by Aaron — December 2, 2005 @ 1:04 pm

3. In light of recent events surrounding Tookie, I’d have to partake in some discussion. I did enjoy this piece, Moe, when you wrote it but never got around to commenting.

   Aaron’s logical breakdown of capital punishment and the cruel and unusual punishment’s completely ILL-ogical nature is fascinating to me. I have always found logic and reason a good foundation with which to make a decision…although I don’t discount morality in lieu of a decision, it does cloud things. The moral versus logical journey in its entirety rears its ugly head, yet again, on the notion of capital punishment.

   Which path is suited best for the situation at hand? The moral path which is primarily based on an “eye for an eye” imperative in conjunction with testimonials from the victims’ families, or as Moe put it rather well - “Being tough on crime shows results. You will stop future crimes from being committed. Maybe you don’t have to be as extreme as Iran but tough none the less…” – this idea of shock therapy in an effort to instill fear for a bad deed. Granted, it’s a whole lot of wrath of God b.s., but despite the religious reference, it captures the “intention” behind the use of capital punishment rather well. The precedent makes sense. Shock therapy (figuratively speaking) has an unusual way of working (in some cases), but isn’t the idea of having someone’s life in the palm of your hands somewhat disturbing? I too get that weird feeling in my stomach when men and women are put to death. It’s almost as though each push of the injection, each pull of switch or trigger, or each pull of that lever brings us closer and closer to learning nothing at all. Wondering whether a life of solitude versus death will solve the situation is an extremely tough call as well but nevertheless, it’s a bold question/assumption to make. Sure there’s no way of knowing which is the right answer, but it’s an interesting place to start, especially when you break it down into its parts…the bare basics…again as Moe wrote. He points out the mundane, everyday freedoms that, yes, we as a species do take for granted. (nice call, by the way) Taking control of that, well that’s an interesting perspective on the age old question of crime and punishment.

   Which punishment truly addresses the crime? Will the criminal find redemption? Does he/she (do WE) care about redemption? Better yet, do we also want to regale ourselves in our own selfish desire to fulfill the “eye for an eye” imperative? If that were the case, what the hell is society doing exactly?

   Let’s try the logical path. Sticking to an argument which points out the financial inefficiencies coupled with the statistical data regarding crime rate (to reference Aaron) could be troublesome for those arguing for clemency in a case about capital punishment. Clemency followed by another trial that now includes the testimony of a one Gordon Bradbury von Ellerman could make or break history. Do we take that risk and exhaust more tax dollars, a risk that could put Tookie in solitude, and/or give him freedom, or put him back on death row only to yet again, bring us back to square one? Maybe the logical path doesn’t even matter because it could be a cover for what’s really ailing us: this feeling of guilt that we just ended someone’s life without really knowing the entire truth. So now it could be a moral path again? (Relying on our mixed moral principles regarding life, death, and redemption—whatever the hell that means). I’m not going to try to answer that age-old question of logic versus morality, but I’ll continue to ask the questions.

   Comment by bindi — December 12, 2005 @ 4:01 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI

Leave a comment