Friday, May 20, 2005
Shots fired! 3 dead; 2 hurt; Resolve tested
By The Erudite Redneck
For 20 years, at least, the following has been my position on capital punishment: “I don’t believe the state should have the power to kill its citizens, ever.”
That’s what I believe. Not because I don’t think some people deserve to die for their actions. No. In fact, my redneck friends and kin have joked for years about the unwritten “He needed killin’ law.”
See the great movie “Next of Kin.” I LOVE that flick. Yes, I have a strain of vigilantism in me.
The state, and by that I mean the state in the general sense – whether individual state of the U.S., the United States as a whole, or any other legitimate form of general government – should not have such power.
Is it a good thing that Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma City bomber, is gone? You bet. But it makes me nervous that this country put down one of its citizens, a veteran at that.
Are we better off every time someone gets the needles at McAlester (Oklahoma state pen)? Probably, in most cases, but that’s not the point.
An aside: Incarceration, in my view, has several purposes, some of which have fallen out of favor.
There is simple punishment, upon which most of us can agree. There is the need to separate some violent people from the rest of society by locking them away, upon which most can agree.
There is the hope of rehabilitation, upon which many of us agree.
And there is retribution, or vengeance, which is the main one that has fallen out of favor.
Capital punishment, being permanent, answers three out of four. There is, of course, no hope of rehabilitation, this side of Jordan. But, I don’t care, and I digress.
Nowadays, first-degree murder is about the only crime for which one can be punished with death. I dare say most of the ones who get it deserve it. But, advancements in DNA technology have called that into question recently, which is another reason to be against capital punishment.
But the bottom line is this: We tend to overreact in this country. See Congress right now. See the Bush administration. For 20 years I have feared capital punishment in the hands of a people who were so afraid they would start misusing it wholesale. We are that afraid, it appears, now.
Capital punishment for murder? Why not for rape? Sounds reasonable, and it used to be the law in some places. While we’re at it, why not for aggravated robbery?
Why not for manufacturing methamphetamine (a real scourge on society that we’re only starting to realize).
Why not capital punishment for identity theft? Lives are ruined every day because of it. Why not just kill the perps? Why not capital punishment for drunk driving? Why not for selling marijuana?
Why not kill people for writing unpopular things? Or for saying “unpatriotic” things? Or for opposing the status quo?
Why not use capital punishment to tamp down some of the extremes of liberty that make this country and society so messy and hard to govern?
You think I’m paranoid? Bull. Read the news right now out of Washington. The FBI brazenly, without apology, in the name of the “war on terrorism,” wants to be able to avoid having to go before a magistrate before issuing subpoenas.
Next will be arrest warrants. Who needs a judge? Then, well, why not do away with the paperwork altogether? After all, there’s a WAR on.
There’s a war on all right, a war against freedom in the professed name of “security,” but really in the name of simple “order.”
Screw order. I choose freedom. I choose the messiness of disorder that comes with it.
And I oppose the death penalty, in all cases, for all time.
And that’s why I was dismissed from jury service last week.
It was a capital case. The defendant had shot three people to death, and left two others shot and in critical condition. He admitted the act. He’d pled not guilty and self defense.
For three days, I agonized over my 20-year position on the death penalty. Why? Because I wanted to do my civic duty.
People who are four-square against the death penalty do not get on juries in capital cases, which bothers some people. But the logic of the system fails if you don’t weed out death penalty opponents. If you can’t honestly consider it as an option, then you can’t honestly follow the law, because the death penalty is an option under the law.
Thus, the source of my angst. Here’s how I resolved it.
Yes, I am against the death penalty, I testified in several instances over three days of voir dire. But faced with a real-life case, I have to fine-tune my political position.
I am against it because of its potential for wholesale misuse, I said, making reference to our penchant for overreacting. It is not being misused now, not in the way I mean, although I believe some die who don’t deserve it.
So, I am against it, but I can follow the law. I can suspend my political position, consider the facts, consider the law, follow the instructions to the jury, and do my duty.
The prosecutor didn’t buy it. I don’t blame her. I was dismissed. I don’t know how the trial turned out. You’d think a trial in a triple-homicide case would make the news, but I have not read or seen a peep about it.
I did my duty, by the way. I showed up for jury service, which is more than some do. I thought hard, agonized, in fact, over a long-held belief.
And I looked the state in the eye, in the form of an assistant prosecutor, and said, basically:
“You do not deserve the power to kill your own citizens. I will follow the law, because to serve on this jury and do less would be its own form of minor anarchy. Between my own personal views and the rule of law, I choose the rule of law. But I’m on to you, and I resent being put in this position.”
END
For 20 years, at least, the following has been my position on capital punishment: “I don’t believe the state should have the power to kill its citizens, ever.”
That’s what I believe. Not because I don’t think some people deserve to die for their actions. No. In fact, my redneck friends and kin have joked for years about the unwritten “He needed killin’ law.”
See the great movie “Next of Kin.” I LOVE that flick. Yes, I have a strain of vigilantism in me.
The state, and by that I mean the state in the general sense – whether individual state of the U.S., the United States as a whole, or any other legitimate form of general government – should not have such power.
Is it a good thing that Timothy McVeigh, Oklahoma City bomber, is gone? You bet. But it makes me nervous that this country put down one of its citizens, a veteran at that.
Are we better off every time someone gets the needles at McAlester (Oklahoma state pen)? Probably, in most cases, but that’s not the point.
An aside: Incarceration, in my view, has several purposes, some of which have fallen out of favor.
There is simple punishment, upon which most of us can agree. There is the need to separate some violent people from the rest of society by locking them away, upon which most can agree.
There is the hope of rehabilitation, upon which many of us agree.
And there is retribution, or vengeance, which is the main one that has fallen out of favor.
Capital punishment, being permanent, answers three out of four. There is, of course, no hope of rehabilitation, this side of Jordan. But, I don’t care, and I digress.
Nowadays, first-degree murder is about the only crime for which one can be punished with death. I dare say most of the ones who get it deserve it. But, advancements in DNA technology have called that into question recently, which is another reason to be against capital punishment.
But the bottom line is this: We tend to overreact in this country. See Congress right now. See the Bush administration. For 20 years I have feared capital punishment in the hands of a people who were so afraid they would start misusing it wholesale. We are that afraid, it appears, now.
Capital punishment for murder? Why not for rape? Sounds reasonable, and it used to be the law in some places. While we’re at it, why not for aggravated robbery?
Why not for manufacturing methamphetamine (a real scourge on society that we’re only starting to realize).
Why not capital punishment for identity theft? Lives are ruined every day because of it. Why not just kill the perps? Why not capital punishment for drunk driving? Why not for selling marijuana?
Why not kill people for writing unpopular things? Or for saying “unpatriotic” things? Or for opposing the status quo?
Why not use capital punishment to tamp down some of the extremes of liberty that make this country and society so messy and hard to govern?
You think I’m paranoid? Bull. Read the news right now out of Washington. The FBI brazenly, without apology, in the name of the “war on terrorism,” wants to be able to avoid having to go before a magistrate before issuing subpoenas.
Next will be arrest warrants. Who needs a judge? Then, well, why not do away with the paperwork altogether? After all, there’s a WAR on.
There’s a war on all right, a war against freedom in the professed name of “security,” but really in the name of simple “order.”
Screw order. I choose freedom. I choose the messiness of disorder that comes with it.
And I oppose the death penalty, in all cases, for all time.
And that’s why I was dismissed from jury service last week.
It was a capital case. The defendant had shot three people to death, and left two others shot and in critical condition. He admitted the act. He’d pled not guilty and self defense.
For three days, I agonized over my 20-year position on the death penalty. Why? Because I wanted to do my civic duty.
People who are four-square against the death penalty do not get on juries in capital cases, which bothers some people. But the logic of the system fails if you don’t weed out death penalty opponents. If you can’t honestly consider it as an option, then you can’t honestly follow the law, because the death penalty is an option under the law.
Thus, the source of my angst. Here’s how I resolved it.
Yes, I am against the death penalty, I testified in several instances over three days of voir dire. But faced with a real-life case, I have to fine-tune my political position.
I am against it because of its potential for wholesale misuse, I said, making reference to our penchant for overreacting. It is not being misused now, not in the way I mean, although I believe some die who don’t deserve it.
So, I am against it, but I can follow the law. I can suspend my political position, consider the facts, consider the law, follow the instructions to the jury, and do my duty.
The prosecutor didn’t buy it. I don’t blame her. I was dismissed. I don’t know how the trial turned out. You’d think a trial in a triple-homicide case would make the news, but I have not read or seen a peep about it.
I did my duty, by the way. I showed up for jury service, which is more than some do. I thought hard, agonized, in fact, over a long-held belief.
And I looked the state in the eye, in the form of an assistant prosecutor, and said, basically:
“You do not deserve the power to kill your own citizens. I will follow the law, because to serve on this jury and do less would be its own form of minor anarchy. Between my own personal views and the rule of law, I choose the rule of law. But I’m on to you, and I resent being put in this position.”
END
Comments:
<< Home
Great essay. I've been on both sides of the fence on this one...currently technically for it for mass murderers or serial killers (as a way of preventing them from ever hurting anyone else -- more like putting down a dog with rabies), but ONLY if the state can be absolutely certain that the person really, really did it. And even one execution of an innocent person is too many.
I'm not going to say I'm completely against the death penalty any more than I'm completely against abortion. I think taking life, in whatever form or stage, has to be carefully considered.
My main worry about the death penalty has been exacerbated in recent years with DNA tests overturning convictions. How carefully are we considering things if we're putting innocent men and women to death?
As for McVeigh being dead, well, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, but I certainly would love to have him around to corroborate or deny whatever stories emerge about a third bomber, etc.
We give up a lot, including a little humanity, when we take a life, no matter how legal.
My main worry about the death penalty has been exacerbated in recent years with DNA tests overturning convictions. How carefully are we considering things if we're putting innocent men and women to death?
As for McVeigh being dead, well, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy, but I certainly would love to have him around to corroborate or deny whatever stories emerge about a third bomber, etc.
We give up a lot, including a little humanity, when we take a life, no matter how legal.
How about the death penalty, as Jodie said, only in certain cases?
Just playing devil's advocate a bit--since DNA is the answer to overturning convictions made when the technology didn't exist, now that it does exist, there's no reason to change the punishment when there's DNA evidence as proof in new cases, no?
Just playing devil's advocate a bit--since DNA is the answer to overturning convictions made when the technology didn't exist, now that it does exist, there's no reason to change the punishment when there's DNA evidence as proof in new cases, no?
# posted by 
: 11:54 AM
: 11:54 AM
I am against it, period. It is an awful -- in the classic sense -- power for the state to have over its citizens. So, picking and choosing who gets to die and who doesn't -- that's playing God.
An issue that will continue to be debated.
As I always like to mix things up, I wonder what the foundational principle is for this choice? I know you said it is the state playing God. And I can buy that. But what lies beneath that? Is it a simple value placed on all human life?
Secondly, how do you give retribution to a family who has had their family member murdered? And I am not advocating an eye for an eye thing here. But can we be in a position to say never upon never upon never? Are there no instances, as rare as they may be, where the death penalty would be appropriate?
Not so much arguing with you, as much still trying to decide where I come down on the issue. I like what the person said about having it in certain, without doubt, cases. And in those cases, I am wondering why the state does not have the right to execute its citizens?
As I always like to mix things up, I wonder what the foundational principle is for this choice? I know you said it is the state playing God. And I can buy that. But what lies beneath that? Is it a simple value placed on all human life?
Secondly, how do you give retribution to a family who has had their family member murdered? And I am not advocating an eye for an eye thing here. But can we be in a position to say never upon never upon never? Are there no instances, as rare as they may be, where the death penalty would be appropriate?
Not so much arguing with you, as much still trying to decide where I come down on the issue. I like what the person said about having it in certain, without doubt, cases. And in those cases, I am wondering why the state does not have the right to execute its citizens?
Well, I've made my argument for why I don;t think the state should be able to kill its citizens.
But herre is my solution, and I'm serious.
If a jury finds that someone committed murder in the first degree, and if the state wherein the crime occurred has the death penalty, then if the survivors of the murderer are willing to select one from themselves to be in the death chamber, or at the firing squad, or next to the hangman, and to actually push the button that causes the poison to flow, or pull the trigger, or pull the lever that open the trap door on the gallows, then I would not oppose the state having a legal mechanism whereby it could transfer the power to kill its own citizens to that individual citizen, to execute the sentence in the name of justice.
I am very legalistic in my opposition to capital punishment. In this country, wheh the state acts, by law, custom and constitution, I act, by definition. I accept that guilt by association -- and whatever praise by association that come our way -- but if I had the luxury of personally working to oppose the death penalty, which I do not because of my job, I would. :-)
But herre is my solution, and I'm serious.
If a jury finds that someone committed murder in the first degree, and if the state wherein the crime occurred has the death penalty, then if the survivors of the murderer are willing to select one from themselves to be in the death chamber, or at the firing squad, or next to the hangman, and to actually push the button that causes the poison to flow, or pull the trigger, or pull the lever that open the trap door on the gallows, then I would not oppose the state having a legal mechanism whereby it could transfer the power to kill its own citizens to that individual citizen, to execute the sentence in the name of justice.
I am very legalistic in my opposition to capital punishment. In this country, wheh the state acts, by law, custom and constitution, I act, by definition. I accept that guilt by association -- and whatever praise by association that come our way -- but if I had the luxury of personally working to oppose the death penalty, which I do not because of my job, I would. :-)
Well, it's hard to find someone to agree with when they're always so wrong and I'm always so right. :)
I would be able to suspend my political position on capital punishment -- and that's what it is, political ,not a moral objection -- for the more fundamental question of rule of law. Rule of law trumps all else right up until the revolution.
i agree with you on this statement: We tend to overreact in this country. i have a phrase i coined to describe that. "typical government overkill". but i am for the death penalty, particuarly now with dna evidence making the case so much more definitive. i think we don't execute often enough and we wait too long to carry it out. dna testing confirms guilt as well as innocence. also, although this has nothing to do with this particular post, i notice you refer to the democrat party as the democratic party. this is a pet peeve of mine. very few democrats are democratic and not too many more republicans are either.
Thanks for joining in, Mark. My position, though, has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Guilty or innocent, for the state to kill its own is wrong, IMHO.
As fer yer peeve, like it or not the proper name of the mostly liberal party in the United States is the Democratic Party. The proper name for the mostly conservative party is the Republican Party.
Post a Comment
As fer yer peeve, like it or not the proper name of the mostly liberal party in the United States is the Democratic Party. The proper name for the mostly conservative party is the Republican Party.
<< Home
