Subject: To Peter and Craig
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
Hello all,
It has been some time since the death penalty has been re-examined on this
list. I'm glad that I was NOT the one to initiate the dicourse (for a change).
I won't bore you (or enrage you) with restatements of my position on the
merits of the death penalty, but I would like to respond to the posts recently
by Peter Kahrman and Craig Harrison.
Peter Kahrman wrote: (MY RESPONSE IS IN CAPS)
It has been some time since I have taken part in this debate over
the death penalty. You and I have had some healthy, respectful exchanges
in the past. But in your response to Ms. Flemming you appear to engage in the
very sniping she appropriately criticized, at one point asking her if she
comes from a middle class white background with an income above $50,000, or
something like that.
THE "SNIPE" WAS SARCASM, IT'S TRUE; BUT IT WASN'T MEAN-SPIRITED IN NATURE, I
PROMISE. RATHER, IT WAS A FRUSTRATED RESPONSE TO WHAT APPEARS TO ME TO BE THE
SHARP DIVISIONS IN THE WIDER DP DEBATE WHICH RUN EXCLUSIVELY ALONG CLASS (NOT
RACIAL) LINES. SPECIFICALLY: IT SEEMS THAT THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THOSE
I'VE SPOKEN WITH (AND OF COURSE, I HAVEN'T SPOKEN WITH EVERYONE, BUT WHO HAS?)
WHO DENOUNCE THE DEATH PENALTY ARE PRECISELY THOSE WHO ARE LEAST QUALIFIED TO
DISCUSS THE PHENOMENON OF THE CRIMINAL CULTURE IN AN INFORMED AND URGENT
MANNER. THE ARGUMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE DP IS WRONG BECAUSE IT "IGNORES
THE INNATE DIGNITY OF HUMANITY" IS ADVANCED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BY WHITE
PROFESSIONALS (UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS, LAWYERS, DOCTORS) WHO ARE IGNORANT OF
(WHAT CLINTON RECENTLY CALLED) "THE DARKER FORCES" OF OUR NATURE. THESE
PROFESSIONALS INHABIT NICE NEIGHBORHOODS (IN CITIES AND SUBURBIA), LARGELY
SHIELDED FROM THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT, AND KNOW ONLY OF CRIME WHAT THEY READ
ABOUT IN THE PAPERS: A DILUTED, ALMOST CLINICAL, DESCRIPTION OF EVEN THE MOST
BRUTAL OF ACTS, ACCOMPANIED BY A LENGTHY AND HEART WRENCHING ACCOUNT OF THE
SOCIAL "FORCES" WHICH (PRESUMABLY) "DRIVE" THE CRIMINALS TO ACTS OF
"ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR". MY POINT ISN'T THAT ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
VICTIMIZED BY CRIME SHOULD HAVE A VOICE, OR THAT PROFESSIONALS SHOULD MOVE TO
CRIME RIDDEN NEIGHBORHOODS. INSTEAD, I'M SUGGESTING THAT A BROADER (LESS
LOCKEAN) UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF CRIMINALITY SHOULD BE SOUGHT AFTER
BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS MYOPIC AND MISINFORMED. IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT A
CHILD GROWING UP IN POVERTY, SURROUNDED BY DRUGS, ENMESHED IN A GHETTO CULTURE
WHICH EXTOLS AGRESSION AND DISRESPECT FOR AUTHORITY AS VIRTUES WILL HAVE AN
ENORMOUSLY DIFFICULT TIME NOT INTERNALIZING THOSE VALUES AS HE REACHES
ADULTHOOD. BUT AT WHAT POINT DO WE STOP LETTING HIS ENVIRONMENT EXCUSE HIS
CONDUCT? ENVIRONMENT CAN NEVER BE AN EXCUSE FOR BEHAVIOR; ALL WE CAN DO IS
PUNISH WHILE WE TRY TO REMEDY SOCIAL ILLS. TO DO OTHERWISE WOULD BE TO
CONDONE CRIMINALITY, AND ADMIT THAT HUMANITY IN FACT DOES NOT HAVE AN "INNATE
DIGNITY" WHICH MAY RISE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES OF POSITION AND PLACE. BUT
HUMANITY DOES HAVE A CERTAIN DIGNITY . . . WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT TO BELIEVE
IN SELF-GOVERNMENT. BUT WHEN A PERSON MAKES A CONSCIOUS CHOICE TO IGNORE THE
RULES OF A FREE SOCIETY AND OFFEND THE LAWS OF MAN AND NATURE BY TAKING AN
INNOCENT PERSON'S LIFE, THEN PERHAPS THAT PERSON'S DIGNITY IS DIMINISHED JUST
A BIT. I REALIZE THIS IS GETTING A BIT LONG, SO I'LL CUT IT HERE, BUT WOULD BE
HAPPY TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION WITH ANYONE.
Phrasing like that has the hint of bigotry about it. Probably
not a conscious intention on your part, but think about it. Perhaps a
little reflection is in order.
HMMM...THINKING.....WELL, IF YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT I DO NOT LIKE WHITES OR
THE MIDDLE CLASS, THEN ALL I CAN DO IS ASSURE YOU I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST
EITHER. AS I SAID ABOVE, HOWEVER, WHAT I AM AGAINST IS A NARROWNESS OF
PERSPECTIVE (THAT SEEMS TYPICAL OF MIDDLE CLASS WHITES IN THIS DEBATE) THAT
SEEMS TO SAY, 'GOLLY, IF THOSE MURDERERS WERE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES TO
ADVANCE THAT I WAS GROWING UP - WHY, I'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE TURNED OUT
DIFFERENTLY. THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED; THEY SHOULD BE REHABILITATED.' I'M
SORRY, BUT I CAN NOT ACCEPT THAT. PEOPLE - ALL PEOPLE - ARE GIVEN CHOICES.
SOME CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THE RULES, AND SOME DO NOT. TRUE, NOT ALL OF US HAVE THE
SAME RANGE OF CHOICES, BUT ON A MORAL LEVEL-ON THE LEVEL OF GOOD AND EVIL-WE
ALL HAVE LARGELY THE SAME CHOICES (AND CAPACITIES FOR BOTH). YOU DO NOT HAVE
TO SEND SOMEONE TO PRISON TO TEACH HIM GOOD FROM EVIL; IF HE COULDN'T MAKE
THAT DISTINCTION, HE WOULD NEVER BE SENT TO PRISON, ANYWAY.
One other point (I don't have much time now, so forgive the
shortness of this note): In your response to Ms. Flemming, you wrote that
her belief, one I share, that killing criminals is wrong because innocent
people will, on occasion be wrongly executed, is absurd because it would
mean that jailing criminals is wrong because sometimes innocent people
would get jailed. This is a weak anology, Dan, because if an innocnent
perosn is wrongly jailed, the mistake can be corrected. If an innocent
person is executed, there is no recourse.
I DON'T WANT TO REVISIT THESE TIRED OLD ARGUMENTS PETE, BUT LET ME JUST
CLARIFY: IT IS ONLY A WEAK ANALOGY IF CONVICTS ARE WRONGLY EXECUTED WITH ANY
REGULARITY. IF THEY ARE (WHICH I DON'T BELIEVE), THEN (HANDS ARE UP) YOU GOT
ME. BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, MS. FLEMING WAS ADDRESSING THE IMMORALITY OF
KILLING FOR PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS (YOU KNOW, THE 'OLE "INNATE DIGNITY"
ARGUMENT); SO MY SUGGESTION WAS THAT ONE COULD NOT CONSISTENTLY OPPOSE KILLING
FOR MORAL REASONS AND YET ACCEPT THE MORALITY OF CAGING A HUMAN BEING FOR LIFE
(THE TYPICAL CRY FOR JUSTICE THAT RINGS OUT FROM ANTI-DP'ERS) WITHOUT FIRST
EXPLAINING WHY KILLING INVOKES A SPECIAL MORAL "AURA" THAT IMPRISONMENT DOES
NOT.
One last thing, you implied in your response to Ms. Flemming that
she somehow thinks killers are merely misled people who are deep-down, good
natured. I think you know only too well that this is not at all where she is
coming from. Therefore, again, you, all of us, should avoid the kind of
sniping
she talked about.
AGAIN, I CAN ONLY REFER YOU TO MY FIRST PARAGRAPH IN RESPONSE.
I have said all this to you, as I think you know from past
exchanges between us, with no anger, Dan. You are a bright individual
whose voice can, and oftentimes is, a very healty part of the CP debate.
But when any of us slide into discussion rooted in sniping we become part
of the problem. And I do believe that you are, at core, interested in
being part of the solution. And, I have no doubt the same can be said of
Ms. Flemming.
YOU'RE RIGHT. I'LL KEEP THE SNIPING TO A MINIMUM (BUT SOMETIMES YOU GUYS ARE
JUST SO WRONG!!) ;)
For those of you who do not know me, my name is Peter Kahrmann.
I a former board member of the NYC Chapter of Victims for Victims and I
am against the death penalty as I'm sure you've gathered by now. I became
involved in the whole issue of crime after I was shot in the head in a
hold-up in Brooklyn in 1984. But never fear, while the bullet remains in
the brain, I am in good health, fully ambulatory, and run marathons to
raise money for head injury victims ( although by sharing this
information with you, you now all know I can't duck worth a damn).
Also, as Dan knows, I don not respond to message rooted in, as Ms.
Flemming puts it, sniping. I am only interested in healthy, alebit
emotional at times, discussion about the problem of violent crime in our
country.
Lastly, please don't make the mistake of thinking that my criticism
of Dan in this message means I do not like him or respect him. I told him
once some time ago, that I would leap to his defesne were someone to get
nasty wiht him, and I've seen it done. As a people we need to learn how
to disagree.
My best to you all.
Always peace,
Peter
NICE TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN, PETE.
______________________________________________
Craig Harrison wrote:
I for one dropped out of the Dorry vs. everybody else CP thread when
it became clear what we agreed and disagreed on, given that the area
of disagreement concerned predictions of the outcomes of policy about
which nobody has real knowledge, with the predictable result that
reasoned argument gave way to rhetoric.
MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY....SAD, BUT TRUE.
We both agree that CP at its present level has no discernible effect
on the murder rate, while an automatic (and prompt) execution of 100%
of convicted murderers, thereby increasing the rate of executions
from a few dozen to a few thousand a year, would have a dramatic
effect.
YES....
But that is where the difficulty begins. Most Americans say they
support CP, but would they support an increase such as this?
THEY PROBABLY WOULD IF THE CRIME RATE DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY, AND IF SUCH
POLICY IMPACTED POSITIVELY ON THE QUALITY OF THEIR DAY TO DAY LIVES. ASIDE
FROM THAT HAPPENING, THERE WOULD BE OPPOSITION, I'M SURE. LET ME BE THE FIRST
TO SAY THAT THE IDEA OF METING OUT STATE SANCTIONED EXECUTIONS BY THE HUNDREDS
ON A DAILY BASIS IS A SCARY, SCARY PROSPECT. BUT RIGHT NOW SO IS TAKING THE
"A" TRAIN AFTER 11:00PM.
And if they didn't, juries would become reluctant to convict defendants of
murder. Right now, the criminal justice process leading to execution
a slow process indeed, partly due, Dorry claims to recalcitrant and
unelected justices thwarting the will of the people.
LET'S NOT FORGET THE IMPACT OF THE CRIME RATE ITSELF ON JUSTICE'S SLOW
HAND...THE MORE CRIME THERE IS, THE MORE BACKED UP THE COURT DOCKETS, THE
SLOWER THE HAND, AND VICE VERSA. IF THE DP COULD REDUCE CRIME, THEN IT WOULD
ALSO SPEED UP JUSTICE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR LIMITING PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
ALREADY FIRMLY IN PLACE.
As a result, DA's are often reluctant even to ask for the death penalty (the
O.J.
Simpson trial aside). Should we do away with separation of powers,
one of the fundamental principles of our Constitution?
NO...
How can we assure that accused murderers get a speedy and short trial and
execution if found guilty, without mangling the Constitution and
surrendering important freedoms (e.g. perhaps rules of evidence,
perhaps presumption of innocence, etc.) to say nothing of increasing
dramatically the execution of innocent people.
WE SHOULDN'T WANT SHORT OR SPEEDY TRIALS...LET TRIALS TAKE AS LONG AS TRIALS
TAKE...BUT ONCE CONVICTED, GIVE A CONVICT FACING THE DP ONE AUTOMATIC APPEAL,
AND IF THE CONVICTION IS UPHELD, THEN LET THE SENTENCE BE CARRIED OUT. THERE
WOULD BE NO NEED TO ALTER EVIDENTIARY RULES OR THE FUNDAMENTAL PREMISES UPON
WHICH DUE PROCESS IS FOUNDED. BUT TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING (EVEN DUE PROCESS) IS A
BAD THING. AS FAR AS THE INNOCENT BEING EXECUTED IS CONCERNED, THIS IS AN OLD
ARGUMENT. WE CAN NEVER, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER KNOW WITH CERTAINTY IF A CONVICT
WAS GUILTY OR INNOCENT. THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN KNOW WITH CERTAINTY ARE THE THE
INNOCENT AND GUILTY PARTIES THEMSELVES. EVERYTHING IS HE SAID/SHE
SAID....COVERUP/DOUBLE COVERUP....ETC. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DUE PROCESS
FOR...TO AID US IN DETERMINING GUILT AND INNOCENCE...IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT,
BELIEV IN IT ALL THE WAY. WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES? WHO KNOWS WHAT MOTIVATES
THE PROSECUTOR TO COME ALONG LATER AND SAY "I'VE SUPPRESSED EXCULPATORY
EVIDENCE" (WHICH WOULD MARK THE END OF HIS CAREER)? MAYBE HE DID, MAYBE HE
DIDN'T, ETC, ETC....
Again, how can we be sure that such measures would dramatically increase the
hostility,
violence and militancy of the inner city poor against the rest of us,
especially given the current enthusiasm for dismantling the very
social programs which might defuse the situation--even now, the US
has the greatest disparity of income of *any* industrialized country,
while educational opportunities (including the GI bill) are
disappearing. These are important questions. I don't know the
answers. But I do know that they can't be anwered by rhetoric.
--Craig Harrison, San Francisco
I DONT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS EITHER, CRAIG, BUT HOPEFULLY REASON WILL PREVAIL
SOONER OR LATER IN THIS DEBATE.
TAKE CARE ALL,
DANIEL DORRY
