**Since I am redesigning VASS due to technical difficulties, I have not been able to present recent thoughts that would appear on that blog. I hope you will bear with me as I present posts that belong on that blog on this one. This is a temporary situation.**
I received an interesting notice from the NAACP today in reference to Gov. Bill Richardson and New Mexico. I had not heard about this before, but it seems that tonight Gov. Richardson will either repeal or allow the death penalty for his State. The NAACP is against the death penalty.
This is an interesting question. Is the death penalty worth having?
Well the first question for me is one that the NAACP emphasizes in its hope to repeal the law. It is disproportionately used against African Americans and Hispanics across the nation. Some 43% of those sentenced to the death penalty are people of color. That is virtually double the percentage of people of color in America.
When you consider, as I discussed in the post and comments of The most Dangerous people in America, that the single largest group of violent criminals in America are White males 18 – 25 years of age, you would expect the death penalty percentages to be different. But the fact that, as I recall, a jury is some 6x more likely to convict a person of color in a death penalty case (and higher when the victim of the crime is White) shines through and explains it all.
Even if you chose to ignore that, there is no question that people of color – especially African Americans – are more likely to be tried and convicted of any crime and sentenced more harshly. The Department of Justice figured that out. Not that any African American didn’t know it already.
So I understand the NAACP’s position. Since the legal system is skewed against people of color, and we are more likely to be victims of incarceration and death – even if innocent – it should not be allowed. And I can’t argue that feeling. It’s perfectly reasonable logic.
But I still believe in the death penalty.
Given the fact that people of color are most likely to be given this punishment. Given that the legal system is broken. Given even the thought that some have moral or religious convictions that are antithetical to this action.
But here is my problem. I do not believe that men like Jeffrey Dahmer (given a life sentence – killed in prison), Timothy McVeigh (executed in 2001), Johannes Mehserle (finally awaiting trial) should live out their lives on my dime. This is also true of crack, heroin, and meth dealers, repeat child molesters, and/or gang bangers that kill innocents in the spreading of their warped views.
Were it up to me, they all would be stuck in rooms half their size when they weren’t busy breaking boulders into tiny pebbles. Were it up to me they would be lucky to hear a radio, never mind a television.
But I am a harsh individual when it comes to those that prey upon society. Many would find my forms of punishment far too brutal, perhaps even torturous. Thus my option is to have them killed. DNA and other absolute proof provided beforehand as a requirement, never on the sole evidence of an eyewitness. But then once there is no longer reasonable doubt, death.
Given the choice of spending $30,000 a year (more than the average American makes in a year) to imprison one of these men for life or killing them I choose the death penalty. If it takes 10 years for all doubt to be removed it cost $300,000 plus another $300 or so in electricity cost (less if you use a firing squad – which can be automated). If you take the average serial killer, a White male about 30 – 40 years old, a life sentence equates to some $900,000 before they die. Possibly more.
So the cost is cheaper to kill them.
Morally is a tougher thought. Though I find it reprehensible that a repeat child molester or a crack dealer, as examples, who can cause irreparable harm to (and possibly lead to the death of) tens if not hundreds of people should come to the end of their lives relatively peacefully in prison – while watching a rerun of Seinfeld. That’s atrocious to me.
So yes the problem is the manner in which the death penalty is applied, and moreso the need to fix the biased and unjust legal system. But those are problems separate of the people that mandated the existence of the death penalty in the first place.
I would not spare the life of a mass murderer because some are squeamish. I would not spare a crack dealer that actively poisoned hundreds just to get a ghettofabulous set of clothes because some are uncomfortable. Think of how uncomfortable the victims of these types of criminals must feel. Think of how squeamish the families felt at seeing loved ones dead body.
Is the death penalty a perfect punishment? No. But there is neither perfect justice nor legal system. Yet when applied properly it is an eye for an eye, and that is the basis of all laws and justice when you think about it.
The argument I think the NAACP and others against the death penalty should be making is one where the ultimate punishment is applied appropriately. Evenhanded in the manner and type of people that receive it. If there is to be a change in the death penalty in New Mexico, or anywhere in the U.S., that is the direction that energy and time should be dedicated to.
But that is my opinion. Let me know what you think. And if you wish, pass this on to Gov. Richardson. I would love to know his position to my thoughts.
2 comments:
Comment as found at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author.
Logan Calder Says:
March 23rd, 2009 at 8:00 pm e
Hi Michael,
Great read, and I am 100% in agreement with you on this one, except for your swipe about 18-25 yr old White males being the most dangerous. That is like saying “you are more likely to be stepped on by a cow than by a sheep when you are standing in a cow pasture”. Just because there are far more cows than sheep in that field, it does not make the cows more dangerous, and in your case example, the numbers (that you leave out) actualy show that Black males are more dangerous than any other segment by percentage, and you know this. Why would you continue to spin an angle for political advantage when it is a half truth?. This undermines your integrity to me and comes off as racist.
To the point of your article though, I agree entirely with your view. I too think that the death penalty must be, and should be used far more often to get rid of the parasites that feed on good people. To ban it because of the “innocent man” theory is like saying we cannot do any better. What is different about the death penalty than any other punishment when it comes to defining guilt or punishment??. To say that we must give up the death penalty because we cannot be sure it is fair?? arent these the same people that decide every crime and punishment?? does this mean that the entire legal system is a joke and unfair??. Is it ok to take a mans life by putting him away for life when he is innocent, as long as we dont kill him?? or take him from his family for 5, 10, or 20 years so that his children are ashamed, finacialy broken, lose their father, and he loses the most precious moments of his life if he is innocent, as long as we dont kill him??. This is a joke, and I hope you call him and everyone on this spineless idea and demand that they either let everyone out, or make laws, rules, and systems that protect the innocent and punish the guilty. That is the basis of our society.
As far as the legal system being racist, I would like to compare the last 10 years to the last 50 years and see if, as I believe, things are getting better. People like yourself and groups that are there to protect minorities, guilty or not, are helping to make these changes. I really enjoy your points of view and the fight you wage, and I hope you do not take offense to any of my comments.
Logan,
I never get upset hearing a well thought out comment to any post I write. Even if that comment is in complete dissent of what I have stated.
I do believe that many aspects of the legal system are better today than in many decades past. In my lifetime there have been huge strides forward, giving a glimpse of a real balanced legal system. But a glimpse is not reality, nor enough.
It seems we both see the futility in having a system that would hide it’s eyes to unjustly punishing the innocent with life rather than ensure justice and include the death penalty for the guilty.
I think it’s a clear statement about the justice system; an admission of its flaws that the fear of killing an innocent - after a decade of mandatory reviews and appeals - prevents punishing those that would kill our society. Only in a fundementally corrupt system would such fears hold even after being held to the light for years.
But obviously, Gov. Patterson and others of his political convictions, believe it is far more important to look like they are governing than to actually ensure the best for the people.
And as to your question of my numbers and who is truly most dangerous I will first refer you to my post The most dangerous people in America and Part 2, and here is an example of why percentages are not as important as real numbers.
What is more dangerous, 2 people out of ten commiting a violent act, or 10% of ten people, or 50% of all the violent people in that group? If in a room with snakes 50% are poisonous, but in that same room there is a Python and a cobra and 1,000 scorpions - what is more fearful?
My point is that percentages are used to create an impression. While it may be accurate in a specific view it often hides far more pertinant and perhaps uncomfortable facts. In both the above examples you might be amazed how people react to the implied danger the percentage poses as opposed to the true danger the raw numbers actually indicate.
But to be fair, in this post I did not use actual raw numbers so I am at fault in mixing my references as much as most politicians do with their polispeak. Though in my post, Most dangerous people, I keep the comparisons direct and equivalent.
Post a Comment