Subject: Re: Dorry on Death Penalty
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
A few points need to be cleared up re. Dorry's latest. I'll be
as brief as possible.
"I'd like to say that EVERY PERSON who has responded to my posts has
commented on my use of Esq...[ad hominems deleted]...surely you won't
suggest that I don't have a right to identify myself in a manner I think
appropriate?"
Certainly not. You have every right to do so. But others also have the
right to question the appropriateness, if they see fit.
"You certainly don't believe that a member of the Transnational Radical
Party like myself would use Esq. as an indication of social rank, do you?"
_I_ don't believe that, knowing that you are an American, but this is
the *Transnational* Radical Party, and the title 'Esq.' *is* used as
an indicator of social rank in Britain, albeit quite loosely--it's not
an official title, but often appended in correspondence, especially of
an impersonal nature; hence my explanation for the benefit of British
and European readers who, it appeared to me were not aware of the
distinction and that it indicates that the user is a lawyer in America.
We seem, however, to agree on what I consider one basic issue:
"I have never made the claim that CP IS a deterrent to anything [assuming
you mean IS NOW]; I have stated, however that *if implemented rigorously*
[emphasis mine] it seems reasonable to accept the notion that it can [act?]
as a deterrent."
And its corollary [my statement to which you then responded]:'The chances
that large increases in the number of executions will be deeply offensive
to people in our society long before they become high enough to be an
effective deterrent, so that the high rates Dorry demands are unlikely
as long as we remain a free and democratic nation' to which you replied:
"You may well be right, Craig." What follows that is where we disagree.
You ask "might not the population tolerate the CP policy because they
FEEL safer?" Only if the society has become far more intolerant and
polarized, so that an Us vs. Them mentality has become rampant. We're
talking about a 25-fold increase in the rate of executions over that
of any year in our entire history, or about a 250-fold increase over
the present rate. True, this is more tolerated, say, in Mississippi
than it is in San Francisco; but we're talking about a dramatically
larger rate of executions than we have ever experienced anywhere.
The present criminal justice system is already stretched to the limit
with the present case load, to the point where, as has been pointed
out, prosecutors are reluctant to ask for the death penalty. For
although conviction and sentencing are done separately, the death
penalty is requested or not before the trial starts. And in California
at least, any death penalty is automatically reviewed by the State
Supreme court; all in all, the process leading to execution is long,
arduous and expensive. What constitutional and other safeguards must
go before we can secure the rigorous implementation of CP all this
implies? How are we to get prosecuters to agree to ask for the
death penalty or judges or juries to agree to apply it, 100+ times
more often than now? Either our society values (as I think it does
fairness and freedom as to be deeply offended before CP reaches
any such levels, or we will have a society polarized and callous to
brutality and death, in other words, a police state.
Which brings up the issue of race. And here, I owe you an apology.
On checking, I found that you said *most*, not *all* violent crimes
are committed by African Americans. But I would take issue even with
that. What's true is that a disproportianate number of those *arrested*
and those *convicted* of violent crimes are black. Racism on the part
of the police and the criminal justice system has been charged; but I
think equally important is the poverty of inner city blacks consequent
to years of racism and neglect, which can't be undone overnight even
if we were to put far more effort into reversing the situation than
we have to date: we seem more intent on punishment--addressing the
symptoms, at what promises to be at great expense for new prisons,
etc. with little likely effect on the crime rate. This being so, the
burden of punishments, or of executions at a dramatically higher rate,
will fall disproportionately on the black and Hispanic communities,
and if *that* doesn't offend the white community, it will likely
increase the hostility of blacks and other minorities towards whites
and strain our social fabric to the breaking point, with a dramatic
escalation of violence the likely result, not safe streets and
tranquility.
A couple of other points: I said 'in the Japan of the 1920's--since
the penalty for burglary was death, it was extremely dangerous to run
into a burglar in your home' to which you replied: "Nonsense. Killing
potential witnesses to a crime scene in a populated area (a city street)
would be impossible (because of sheer numbers). The threat of killing
witnesses in less populated areas (city street at night) is going to be
about the same regardless of punishment." But I was talking about
*burglary*, which by definition takes place indoors, not on a city
street--and it *was* dangerous to confront a burglar in Japan in the
1920's due to the death penalty for burglary then in force, far more
dangerous than it is now, in modern Japan, where there is no such
penalty.
You quoted me as saying 'In fact, merely removing "predators" from the
street does little to decrease the rate of predation; they will be
quickly replaced by new ones filling their niche' and I went on to
say that it is far more effective to remove the predator's _habitat_.
You replied "Your logic is: I won't bathe today because I'll only get
dirty again by tommorrow???"
No. Faulty analogy. I wouldn't if I were in a situation where I'd
get dirty again immediately after I bathed. I might as well say that
*your* logic is: I'll keep mopping up the floor, but won't try do do
anything about the hole in the roof.
"your entire post was practically worthless, but the call for liberty
and justice was a kicker." I said "liberty and justice for *all*"
[emphasis in the original]
--Craig Harrison
