Blankley: black robes and betrayal
The Supreme Court jabbed hard into one of my supreme sore spots when they ruled that juvenile executions were unconstitutional yesterday. I've made several attempts in the past to write on capital punishment, and to be honest, I'm disappointed that there are so many conservatives who are opposed to it.
This time, I'd like to call attention to Tony Blankley's piece in response to the decision.
I'm sure he and I are far from alone in our outrage that those who have willfully destroyed the very image of God should still be allowed to continue in the same image... It's bad enough that there are any murder convicts who are not swiftly and efficiently dispatched from this earth, but now we have created yet another rule with no basis--to allow one person undeserved life while executing others with no difference but age is completely irrational.
I think most will agree that in the minds of those who have made this irrational rule, there is only one remedy for this new contradiction--and that is to ban the death penalty altogether.
It's coming. Unless there are people willing to take a stand for the sanctity of life, we will soon see the value of our lives fall from priceless to a standard 20 years of enforced welfare behind bars.
This time, I'd like to call attention to Tony Blankley's piece in response to the decision.
The gist of the majority's analysis is that whether the crime is constitutionally "unusual" depends on whether "evolving standards of decency" have reached the point in our history when such punishment has been clearly rejected by society.Do read the details that Blankley provides. It's sure to leave many squirming in their seats.
It happens that only 15 years ago, the Supreme Court found that the kind of statute in question was constitutional. But, rather than overturning that case, yesterday, the court found that in the last 15 years, a national consensus against such punishment had emerged.
I'm sure he and I are far from alone in our outrage that those who have willfully destroyed the very image of God should still be allowed to continue in the same image... It's bad enough that there are any murder convicts who are not swiftly and efficiently dispatched from this earth, but now we have created yet another rule with no basis--to allow one person undeserved life while executing others with no difference but age is completely irrational.
I think most will agree that in the minds of those who have made this irrational rule, there is only one remedy for this new contradiction--and that is to ban the death penalty altogether.
It's coming. Unless there are people willing to take a stand for the sanctity of life, we will soon see the value of our lives fall from priceless to a standard 20 years of enforced welfare behind bars.
posted by Mark at 10:59 AM
Indeed, I could see capital punishment being banned - after all, "elightened" Canada has banned it for years already. Just think, in a few years you could see not only capital punishment being banned, but also someone who beat a man to death with a baseball bat getting only five (or was it three?) years in jail. Just think of how evolved American society could get! Seriously, though, although I somewhat agree with the idea that those under 18 might not fully understand their crimes, the basis for getting rid of laws should be the truth of arguments for or against, not the changing beliefs of society. Truth is not democratic - it's absolute.
-Giustezza
Okay, I've got to say it. I work with babies 2-3 years old to earn my daily bread (I suppose you can call me a "baby-sitter" if you insist) and I make it a point to make and maintain friendships with many, yes, children. Some of them are 6, 7, maybe 8 years old. I have never met ONE of them that did not understand right and wrong. Even a little two-year-old baby knows that hitting is naughty and knows even better that he/she deserves to be punished for it. I am a seventeen-year-old conservative and I can tell you that if I went out tonight and hacked someone to pieces, I would understand completely the crime that I comitted--teenagers are not stupid. They are just as responsible for their actions as any twenty-year-old. So there! No Mark I'm not blowing at you--just expressing to the void my exasperation at the absurdity of it all!
Wheelson:
I see your distinction between premeditated murder and all other's as vague. If it is legally defined as "murder," that means they are guilty of a making a conscious decision to end human life--premeditated is a nice way of saying you thought about it longer.
If you are trying to confuse the issue with thoughts of "manslaughter," I'm sorry, because that has nothing to do with this discussion. Premeditation has nothing to do with this--murder is what it is, regardless of the circumstances.
No, I don't agree with age limits. Life is not that complicated and you can be sure equal capital punishment for all ages (for murder mind you) would be the forerunner to a much greater thoughtfulness on the part of young would-be murderers.
What? Am I supposed to care if Yemen administers capital punishment to all ages? I thought I was arguing that this was good? Whether they do or not is no issue. The only thing I would question is the reliability of their system of due process. Whether we impose similar punishments has nothing to do with whether they are deserved or just.
My past research into death penalty statistics has been extensive. The result was a mixed bag which will take some time to review in-depth. The one thing I had a hard time finding is a study "proving" the ineffectiveness of capital punishment that was not backed by an organization already, committed to the abolition of CP (yes, Amnesty International too).
No, I don't respect Ms. Reno enough to take her word for it (two words: Davidians, Elian)
Also many deal with questionable figures. For example (just one): your link cites a study by "Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood" who seem to think they should see a marked decrease in homicides for a full eight months after ONE execution if deterrence is to be proved. This alone shows a complete disconnect between what I mean by deterrence and what they are "studying." (not to mention a rediculous standard by itself--I understand they had other points but I don't have time to address them here)
When I say deterrence, I mean that any irreconcilable crime (like rape, murder, et al) following complete due process should merit swift and immediate execution. That would dramatically increase the number of initial executions--enough so that potential criminals would actually know for certain that the result of a murder is execution.
You can imagine why I would find it hard to find figures to prove deterrence can work: there aren't any places in the US where they practice CP on the scale that I endorse. I think it would be a profitable exercise to look at the crime stats in places where Islamic law requires swift execution of murderers. I have made a brief attempt at checking these figures but have come up short tonight. I'm willing to eat my words if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure you will find a marginal murder rate in such places.
I hope I need not explain that I do not endorse the whole of what Islamic Law requires of its subjects.
Compassion? I think you know by now that I am guided by my understanding of biblical justice and the role a government can play in this regard. I hope I can honestly say that I feel compassion for everyone, even those who have signed away their right to life and, as John Locke put it, "declared war against all mankind."
Compassion is a pretty shaky standard if you ask me because, as you know, the public is always more willing to execute someone if they don't show remorse--a fact I find repulsive. The TV cameras focus intently during a murder trial on the face of the accused, hoping against hope that some kind of show to induce public sympathy will burst forth at some point.
I'm appalled when a man is convicted and sentenced to death and the judge mentions a lack of remorse as part of his reason for the sentence. Can you tell me how, with this kind of focus so rampant and influential on the fate of the accused, can effective deterrence take place?
Now about age limits... I'm going to withhold further comment because I don't think I'm ready to go into greater depth regarding your questions about 5-year-olds. It seems to me that you would be hard pressed to find an situation that could be defined as "murder" in a five-year-old. You mentioned 13, and I can assure you that I have no questions about that being an appropriate age for CP. Talk about incentive for parents to teach responsibility!
If I have a chance to clarify my thoughts on this, I will do so. Until then, thanks for taking me up on this. It's been good to revisit the issue and you (as usual) asked a host of thought provoking questions.
Post a Comment