Subject: Death Penalty
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
Dear Peter,
Thank you for the your recent note. I'd like very much to dialogue with you
(and anyone else) on this issue, and I welcome your ideas.
I'm not sure if you remember, but the most recent message you sent very much
mirrored a message you sent on January 23rd. But, no matter, I'll respond again
because the points you raise are important.
I argue in favor of the death penalty for a number of reasons. As a response to
the "innocent executions" argument, I argued that CP may indeed cost a (very)
few innocent people their lives, but it is a social cost that we should be
willing to pay for the enormous benefit (which I outline below) we would derive
from CP. I continued, and pointed out that there are many things in society
(elevators, cars, etc) that pose deadly threats to innocent lives . . . but we
tolerate them because of their social utility. You (correctly) pointed out that
the kinds of deadly things we tolerate are deadly only inadvertently, when
accidents occur. But is this a meaningful distinction? The loss to innocent
life through accidental means is as tragic as the loss to innocent life through
purposeful means, isn't it? And if it is a meaningful distinction, then why is
such a stretch (as you called it) to suggest that an innocent execution is an
accident? Aren't most elevator malfunctions, car accidents, and nuclear waste
spills caused by some manner of negligence? Couldn't we also argue that a court
that sentences an innocent man to death is negligent? Why do you focus on the
purposefulness of the injection instead of the negligence of the courts? Such
emotion-invoking imagery is only going to stir more emotion in this debate, and
isn't what you called for in your letter less anger, more even-headedness? The
key to a good start would be to advance points that make sense, not the ones
that stir indignation.
You believe that any proponent of CP must have an explanation for the families
of innocent victims. Mine is this: It's a tragedy, but it's the price we ALL
(yes, all) must pay for living in a safer society. Any one of us could be next,
but we continue to hope that the errors that caused your suffering will be
corrected through investigation, reform, and that only the guilty will be
punished.
Now, Peter, I understand you're a victim of a violent crime. I'm sorry, and I
wish you well. I grew up white in an urban environment in the wake of the
assassination of Martin Luther King and during the rise of the Black Power
movements that swept urban America, so I'm no stranger to violence myself. And
although I don't have a bullet lodged in my frontal lobe, I don't think that
your predicament gives you a mandate on the subject of violent crime. I'm not
trying to be confrontational here, but you seem to have relayed your story to
gain credibility (after all, if a victim like yourself still thinks CP is a bad
idea, then how can it be good?) . . . I'm not buying it. So far, I've heard NO
(not one) convincing argument against the death penalty. Honestly.
As for reforming existing laws that don't make sense, I'm all for it. (Ans as
an attorney, I can tell you that MANY, MANY laws make no sense). But I've
already responded to your examples (which were part of your 1/23 message). But,
if you missed it, I'll say it again:
In NY, your assailant was probably charged with attempted murder in the second
degree, so he received the same punishment he would have received if you had
died. (Murder 2 is an A-I felony, and crimes of attempt to A-I felonies are
themselves A-I felonies in NY).
Re: the rape scenario, you're quite right. Why should an attempted rapist get
less time? But do these points you raise really address the issue? I
understand; you're suggesting there has to be WIDESPREAD reform in order to
combat crime, and I agree. I'm simply suggesting that implementing CP (and
reforming the law to make CP a more effective deterrent) is a good idea. But
that is by no means the solution to crime. If you've been following my posts to
the TRP, then you'd know this to be true.
One last point, Peter. In your note you suggest that we WILL NOT sway each
other from our respective positions. In all candor, I must say this was the
most disturbing thing I've heard since initiating this debate. It suggests that
reason and force of argument have no power to change our perspectives, no power
to broaden our outlook. But that's the very reason I started the debate! I'm
not willing to believe that either one of us is such an ideologue that we would
close our minds from the truth (whatever it may be), simply because we're
confortable or stubborn in our positions. Since I don't believe that, I
challenge you to persuade me that CP is not a good idea.
In case you're not aware of them, I'll reprint some of the reasons about why
I'm pro CP . . .
1. It CAN be an effective GENERAL deterrent against crimes punishable by CP
a. society will be made safer, and the overall standard of living
raised
b. citizens will gain a renewed faith in the justice system
i. no more viglilantism
ii. certain kinds of victims (rape victims, eg)
will be more willing to report crimes
c. The resultant reduction in crime (which is incredibly costly
to the state) from CP will allow more tax dollars to be spent on social
programs which will elevate the status of the underpriveleged and further
reduce crime.
2. It IS INDISPUTABLY an effective SPECIAL deterrent against those sentenced to
death
a. CP removes possibilty of violent criminals gaining parole or
escaping incarceration, thereby removing threat of recidivist
behavior
b. jail space will open to incarcerate those convicted of lesser
crimes . . . facilitating longer sentences, stricter parole guidelines, and
a greater overall general deterrent effect on crimes not punishable by CP
Peter, it seems to me that argument #2 can not be disputed, because there I
have simply stated facts. If you can somehow convince me, however, that either
#1 or # 2 is false, then I may be forced to re-evaluate my position. I look
forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Dorry, Esq.
