--- frank scott <frank at marin.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> if what we oppose is the death penalty, that's the
> issue, and not
> someone's alleged innocence...our argument is that
> it's wrong to murder
> someone as punishment for murder...period.
>
> the endless repetition of "he's really innocent",
> especially in cases
> that seem crystal clear to all but true believers,
> invites the kind of
> response from most of middle , left or right
> america, that we got here
> from wojo...
>
> ie: (paraphrasing, not quoting) he's guilty, you're
> a woos in denial,
> etc....
Finally, we are talking .....
You have a good point that the death penalty itself should be argued against regardless of the guilt or innocence of the condemned person. However, you do not give any good reasons why the death penalty should be opposed. Moral or religious principle thou shalt not kill is a rather weak argument IMHO.
I spent about two days monitoring Yahooo chat list on the William's case to get a gist of what people think about it. Besides the volumes of unspeakably hateful bile spewed by both sides - which left quite an unpleasant aftertaste - some people were actually giving reasons why they support death penalty. Among these reasons, the most frequently quoted (not based on any scientific count):
- retribution for a heinous crime - certitude or finality of the penalty - justice that need to be served
Those who opposed it did so for the following reasons: - religious (appeal to eligious values such as sanctity of life, compassion, forgiveness etc.) - unequal application of the penalty to different social groups - claims that others (anyone from Bush to "neo-cons") kill people yet go unpunished.
It was quite obvious that these two groups speak past each other and simply are oblivious to each other's arguments. It is quite clear that death penalty fulfills some deep emotional need for closure, safety and certitude which the opposing argument do not even begin to address. In fact, I found the opposing argument rather weak, based on not generally accepted or questionable assumptions. I may also add that the need for closure, safety and certitude seems to be a response to emotional distress caused by the heinous nature of the crime.
If this observation is correct, using celebrity gangsta cases as a platform for opposing death penalty in general seems like a failed strategy from the start. A better way is to argue the case when emotions of both sides are cool.
What is more, the opponents must take into account the emotional needs that make people support death penalty - their fears, their sense of imbalance caused by heinous crimes, their need for certitude, justice and closure - and provide adequate answers to those needs.
Mere regurgitating of religious beliefs or conspiratorial theories that no rational person takes seriously does not seem like a winning strategy.
BTW, some of the stuff posted here by the likes of Leigh Myers simply defy reason. Having to choose between the verdict of the jury, numrous appellate courts and pleas of defense attorneys - all of whom had the first hand knowledge of the case, and speculations of some conspiracy theorist or a journo based on some secon- or third-hand accounts of the case - most rational persons would side with the former.
Personally, I belive that the support for death penalty is quite strong in this country - mainly because of the amount of violence (real and perceived) that plagues the US society and social alienation that produce both fear and the need for certainty and safety - and this is not going to change any time soon. I do not think that the opponents stand much of a chance here, but I can of course be wrong. But one thing I am pretty sure is that the usual arguments - fantastic claims of innocence, religious appeals to the sanctity of human life, and claims of racism have zero popular appeal. In fact, they have the opposite effect of driving otherwise persuadable people into the opposing camp.
Wojtek _______________________ DISCLAIMER: Opinions posted by this writer to this forum are solely forms of literary criticism exercised as the First Amendment right, and do not necessarily reflect the author's views or attitudes toward real-life people, including other writers posting to this forum, groups of people, institutions, or events to which the critiqued texts may refer, either explicitly or implicitly. Any statement asserting or implying such views or attitudes on the basis of this writer's opinions posted to this forum is thus unfounded, and may be libelous. ________________________
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com