> > I'm an anti-death penalty absolutist, but I'm really puzzled
> that Max seems oblivious to Blackmunn position, that the
> death penalty, while morally permisible in principle, simply
> cannot be justly applied in practice.>
>
> I don't think I'm oblivious. I've already conceded the saliency
> of some of the points. I'm not all that well informed about the
> whole matter -- e.g., I haven't read any books devoted to it. A
> good part of the argument here has been about the 'morally
> permissible' angle.
These aren't just minor points, Max. They go to the very heart of the matter AS A PRACTICE, which is why I referred to Blackmunn's decades-long self-admitted failed attempt to resolve them.
This point -- that they are central, not perishperal problems -- still seems to elude you.
> > > I think judges and juries are capable of deciding, if that's
> > what you mean, though perhaps not as well as I could.>
> > But deciding on what basis?
>
> The reality seems to be that a sprinkling of murderers are
> selected each year, and the reason why one murderer is selected
> and another is not are part arbitrary and part racially
> motivated. That some are convicted falsely is partly due to race
> and class as well.
One must not forget the misplaced power of the prosecutor, who is the one who decideds who gets charged with capital murder in the first place, the one who takes an active role in shaping the jury, etc.
BTW, did you know that there's a felony trail for prosecutorial misconduct just getting started in Illinois?
Did you know that it's the FIRST felony trail for prosecutorial misconduct in US history?
Something wrong, Max. Something wrong.
> To me the most bothersome part is the
> innocent person falsely convicted and executed. Next is the bias
> in selection among murderers. Not bothersome to me is the fact
> of an actual murderer being executed.
It is to me, Max, but that's not what I'm arguing here. I'm trying to get you to look at the problem systemically, just as you try to do in your field.
Simply focusing on one part of the system, and saying, "Hey, I LIKE that part!" isn't something you would do in your work if you knew that it was inextricably linked to much else that was horrid. This is exactly the kind of mentality you go up against all the time.
> I would not oppose some kind of campaign to ensure life
> imprisonment for the worst offenders, or to improve the justice
> system. But I refuse to engage in breast-beating when some
> miscreant gets his (or hers). And to excuse murderers as
> products of their environment, much less to suggest release of
> convicted criminals, as some here have suggested, is just whacko.
Well, of course, we are ALL products of our environments, which is not to excuse ANYONE's behavior, but to provide a more comprehensive framework for comprehending and dealing with behavior we want to change.
As for what to do with convicted criminals, I'd suggest that we need to recognize prison as an expirement that's largely failed. A small fraction may have to be imprisoned simply to protect society at larger, but as it is prisons simply serve to vastly expand the number of such people. The ring-leader in the racist murdered of James Byrd was a vivid case in point, but only the tip of the iceberg.
> And whacko is bad politics, really no politics. It's surrealism.
What's whacko to me is spending so much time and energy denouncing what is, and so little time working on studying, developing, and promoting alternatives.
I think people are simply expressing their profound outrage at what's being done in their name and in the name of justice. You're right, they're not thinking politically, they're thinking expressively. If they were to write a song or a novel or a play, you (yes, even you, Max!) might think very differently about what they're saying.
What's lacking is a larger context of positive action in which such attitudes can be expressed in a way that doesn't perpetuate the marginalization felt by people expressing such views.
> > (3) Systemic racial prejudice has already been demonstrated --
> in McClesky v. Kemp -- and the Supreme Court said this was not
> a problem unless one could prove SPECIFIC intent in the case
> being appealed -- a clearly impossible burden to meet.>
>
> As I said above, I would prefer an impartial selection of
> murderers for execution, rather than a biased one.
But Blackmunn concluded after decades that such a system is impossible. Given the number of murders committed each year, the the impossiblity should not be surprising.
What then?
> > This is prima facia evidence that the system as a whole is
> subject to bias that no judge or jury, no matter how fair or just,
> can correct.>
>
> I don't think such a statement can be proven.
It's almost tautological, Max.
If racial bias is a systemic part of the entire system, then one judge and one jury can't possibly effect it. It's like the good slaveholder. There really were such people. But they only served to make an abominable system seem palatable.
What's more, remember: it's the PROSECUTORS who decided to who to charge with what.
The judge and jury can only respond to what's presented to them.
> > Unless we're willing to execute tens of thousands of prisoners
> a year it must indeed be flexible.>
>
> Here you seem to be saying that to be really fair, many more
> should be executed.
I didn't say it was fair, much less "really fair."
There's a systemic problem here: the only way to politically maintain the death penalty is to apply it selectively. And there is no way to apply it selectively without bias.
> > It would be better if you considered how hard Blackmunn
> > tried to make the death penalty work, operating from
> > philosophic position similar to yours, before he finally
> > gave it up as an impossible task.>
>
> I've been known to change my mind, and I might if I investigated
> further. But the death penalty may not "work" and still not
> merit much attention if the worst outcome is an incomplete
> selection of awful criminals for execution. As I've said
> repeatedly, race/class bias is well-taken as a problem, and a
> high incidence of wrongful conviction as well. Execution of the
> McVeighs of this world is not.
Well, I guess you're just not as bourgoise as I am, Max. <G>
I see this in terms of a basic value-system, where all members of society have inalienable rights, such as are laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The state should no more put someone to death than it should permit people to go hungry, or go without a roof over their head. It's not a measure of the humanity of the murderer, it's a measure of the humanity of the society that would itself be a murderer.
The state should indeed do everything it can to protect citizens from crime, and particularly from murderers. But the evidence is very strong indeed that the best ways to do this are not the most harshly punitive. The death penalty is an extreme expression of a punitive mentality that lies at the very heart of conservative politics. The contrary view -- that of a restorative mentality -- lies at the heart of a broad range of left politics. And that is why the death penalty is an important issue, even if only one person were left on death row. Even if that person were Timothy McVeigh. (Heck, I sure wouldn't want to make a martyr of that punk.)
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"