This comment from Glen:
Mike:
With all due respect, I have to completely disagree with you. The death penalty is not solely a liberal thing. I know plenty of Conservatives who oppose it (mostly on religious grounds) and some Liberals who favor it.
I see you are an Irishman. So were many of my friends from my native Brooklyn. They, I’m sure like you, are Catholic and agree with the Vatican’s rejection of executions. Not one of them is liberal, only myself.
Please read this hyperlink. It is the perspective of a former San Quentin warden. I put it on my website.
His post about the Death Penalty
Very true, there are some Conservatives who do not favor the death penalty, but this is not an espoused position of the Right, but of the Left.
I was raised Catholic, yes, but I honestly could care less what the Pope says. I enthusiastically support the Death Penalty, unlike the Vatican. In fact, I could be hardly characterized as a “devout” Catholic. When I clicked on the link, I received a site error, so I settled for the blog posting I have hyperlinked above.
You post does not convince me at all of the “badness” of the death penalty. As mentioned in my previous post, life imprisonment does not protect the inmates , and more importantly the Correctional Officers, of a jail. Inmate still manage to arm themselves using homemade weapons, and kill while supposedly confined. I find this unacceptable; I am not willing to walk down a tier, unarmed, and patrol among dozens of violent men who have killed in the past, and will show no hesitation to kill again. Are you willing to patrol that prison tier while unarmed, surrounded by hostile individuals? If not, then what gives you the right to DEMAND that others do so for your protection? What gives you the right to send others into danger, that you are not willing to face yourself? And if you are willing to patrol the tier, and currently are not, then what are you waiting for? After all, we lead by example, do we not?
To get into your post somewhat (each point will correspond with the paragraphs in numerical order):
Paragraphs 1 / 2 / 3:
Yes, the United States is a very civilized country. We are far better than Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, or any other country and region you could name. We are the richest, most powerful, and have the best Constitution of any country. How do I know? Because every third world country that is serious about reform is trying to imitate the United States, not “Old World Europe.” I for one am extremely proud of this country, and part of that pride is that we still have the Death Penalty.
Guilt by association in this case is not an effective way to make your case. Muslim theocracies execute people because they are not Muslim, preach against the Islamic Faith, or because they deemed “subversive”, or are simple unfortunate enough to be a woman who was gang raped. In America, the death penalty is for men and women (though by far mostly men) who commit heinous acts against their fellow citizens, including homicide and rape. The United States executes people for breaking just and reasonable laws, not on the whim of some monarch or mullah. You must judge intent as well as action when comparing the United States to Muslim theocracies.
The spiritual component is justice. Evil men who do evil things must be killed, so that those who only wish to live in peace can be secure and safe. Really, I must ask, why you go to such lengths to defend men who rape and kill? Why are they worthy of my sympathy, my compassion, and my forgiveness? They have done nothing to earn these things, so why should I give them freely?
Paragraph 4:
Skipping right past the personal attack, deterrence does not work because it is hellishly hard to succeed in sending someone to death row in this country. And then, once a criminal arrives on death row he sits for twenty or thirty years while appeal after appeal goes through the courts. So knowing this in advance, prosecutors will go for life imprisonment, or even lesser sentences to make sure they at least put their thug away for some time. In short, the death penalty is seen as a paper tiger. It is a threat that will never be fulfilled, thus why should it affect someones behavior? In today’s age, it is similar to the threat of a parent to leave a misbehaving child at a store; the child knows he will not be left behind, so why should he listen to the parent? Also, a lot of criminals are stupid, and they don’t exactly plan long term. If they did, they wouldn’t be criminals, as they would see it is in their self interest to follow the laws of the land, and not kill and rape or deal drugs.
Paragraphs dealing with statistics:
Numbers, as all know, are not always truthful. Witness Wall Street right about now. When dealing with statistics, we need to factor in a number of things:
1) Who gathered them?
2) Who published them?
3) Who is using them, and what is that groups agenda?
Also, try and take into account the following ideas of mine:
Could it be the states without a death penalty have such low crime rates that they do not feel the need for capital punishment to begin with? Could it be that the states with capital punishment needed to implement it due to high crime? In all probability, it is a mixture of both theories. This leads to the demographic question. Crime rates bear out that though homicides are declining among the white male population, it is rising fast among the black male population. So, it stands to reason that states who have a large population of black males will have a higher murder rate than those states who do not have that same population. Factor in that criminals don’t view the death penalty as a deterrent because it is a paper tiger, and it isn’t surprising that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Also, the FBI Uniform Crime report which you cited (which I would appreciate a link to) says the difference was only 1.73 between states that had the death penalty and those that did not. 1.73 is not an especially large number. I would argue that if the death penalty were applied as it is meant to be, then it would be a real deterrent.
In short, your argument needs some more work.
To your comment on your blog, written by you:
You try to play the hypocrisy card on the religious right, and fail. I am anti-abortion, and proud of it. I will forgive those who I deem are worthy of it, and show the necessary repentance. Unborn children are alive aren’t they? The fetus is collection of organism and cells which will eventually grow into a human being. By killing those organism, you are essentially killing a human being. A human being who has never harmed you, or done anything wrong. But to you, it is a simple matter of convenience I suppose.
And now you try to frighten people, and again, fail. I can count on one hand the amount of abortion clinic bombers there were. And, they were all caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Second of all, legality does not mean morality. If you believe that a fetus is an unborn child, and that the killing of that child is murder, then you see the doctor as a murderer. That said, I do not condone the bombing of abortion clinics, or the murder of those who sanction it. I merely offer that for point of view for your perspective, since you’re so anxious to have us understand murderers and rapists, and forgive them.
Again, an unborn child is entirely innocent of any crime, whereas murderers and rapists are not. It amuses me that you advocate the protection of killers, and the killing of children, who pose an “inconvenience.”
Giving forgiveness to someone who does not deserve it, especially a killer and/or rapist is foolishness. I say again, why should we respect them, when they have shown no respect for their victims?
I’m the animal of the world? I, the animal, who protects innocent life by advocating the killing of those who have NOT shown that respect, and have REPEATEDLY violated and killed other people. It isn’t heinous to kill someone who deserves it; that is justice. And you will never convince me otherwise.
One last point: Consider the case of this “man”, and see if he deserves your protection. This “man” means nothing to me, and contributes nothing to society except pain and suffering. Why should he not be executed?
