Let me first, though, describe my friend who while waiting for the bar results and impoverished, worked in a chicken factory in East Texas. I never saw the place, but she described it as thousands of chickens in all stages of hunger, drugging, narrow confinement and slaughter. It was twenty years later and she would not eat a chicken.
I will confess that I view every new Supreme Court decision through images of thirty plus years of watching the hunger, drugging, narrow confinement and slaughter of human beings. Not only do I lack the desire to eat them, I just don't see much point in their confinement and slaughter anymore.
So why not kill child rapists? I don't dispute the proposition that rape can be a more depraved crime than murder. Rape can destroy a life just as effectively as a bullet in the brain. Most of the sexual predators I have represented were childhood victims of rape. It is much like those horror movies in which, once bitten by the vampire, you become one.
Moreover, a lot of murders are not particularly depraved. Anecdotally, at least, they make the best trustees. The murderess who is chosen to be the nanny to the warden's children is part of prison lore. My dear old dad requested a parolee as a care-taker and, believing the lore, asked for a murderer. I ended up putting him in a nursing home instead, but the sentiment was there.
A lot of crimes are more depraved than murder. Bhopal for instance. AT&T in Chile. IBM in Nazi Germany. Asbestos companies. The Pinto gas tank. The War in Iraq.
So, for me, the proportionality argument does fall flat. But I have other and I think better arguments why the decision was correct. More later.
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg)
12 comments:
Hello Ed and welcome back.
I was reading your post on the ruling; contrasting it with BB and even BWC – AKA: our little corner of the blogosphere’s legal team.
You had me, you did.
Then you add the second to last paragraph.
I find it curious that as you type your thoughts, searching for relevant comparisons, somehow the United States is the only thing that comes to mind. Drafting your list of the atrocities to illustrate your point and somehow, Ford Pintos and Johns-Manville covering up the health dangers of a naturally occurring mineral overrides Nanking of the Sino-Japanese War II, the Great Calamity of Armenia or Bangladesh in 1971?
It is not that Mr. Black and other researchers are not without merit; the United States and its components have a long and distinguished history of doing some fairly awful things. I will even spare you the Colonel Jessep rhetoric. I don’t want this to be mistaken as a “well..they did it too” argument, because it isn’t.
It is just an observation about perspective.
Especially because I agree with you main point of the post.
Kurgan
Kurgan, I think it is a perspective thing based on a philososphical base. I understand your position if I view it through your eyes - I too would find Ed's perspective questionable -
But Kurgan, people who tend to view the world through socialist lenses tend to see crimes against society to be worse than against individuals.
No one will ever convince me any crime whether based on a crime against a person or the community merits the death penalty.
But in that I see the world through a socialist lense - crimes against society come close to meriting the death penalty.
Could you imagine life without parole for a CEO who cheats the company? -for a CEO who turns a blind eye to environmental hazards which then result in a mess?
Bobby WC
BW, and Sensei, by extension - it is his blog,
If I understand correctly, it is worse, on the scale of atrocities, to promise freedom and deliver exploitation than to promise equality and deliver repression?
I counter that the frame of reference notwithstanding, the promise of freedom will triumph over the subjugation of opportunity any day.
It seems that I have the history of migration patterns over the last 200 years on my side.
Bellah argues the community good will supersede the individual and our practical experience finds that difficult to refute, based on the history of the American West for example. But dammit, if we can all agree to the collective betterment of us all: why do we need so many lawyers?
James Madison is disappointed my socialist friend. He knew that depending solely on the benevolence of others would lead to what it did; a failed empire.
Karl, Leon and Vladimir railed against the Iosif's of the world. Philosophy and application are two very, very different things.
Not better, not worse; just perspective.
k
Kurgan,
we are on a different train - as you know in legal analysis it is about identifying the issue - here the issue was perspective - at least as I raised it - and not the merit of the perspective
You got on the train debating the merits of socialism - which means you are heading in the wrong direction
Going back to the Founding Fathers for social perspective ignores that man has evolved in the last 242 years - so I would hope - remember Marx based his entire belief system on the dialectic - norm - challenge to the norm - mixture of norm and challenge to make new norm - evolution my friend -
In 1786 is was legal to execute gay men for having sex - if we are to rely on the unevolved ideas of the Founding Fathers - it would still be legal to execute gay men for having sex - and if that were true who would you be debating - yourself -
I love when the medicine works and I have clarity of mind
Bobby WC
BW,
I think you had introduced the topic of socialists thinking and
I had tried to cover my definition when I talked of the practical application of socialist policies.
The US is far from a pure demcocracy, but I am speaking more of our capitalistic nature, and the lack of appreciation for the opportunities provided; thus losing perspective.
Your mentioning of socialitistic undertones just leads credibility to my statements. It is highly likely that neither you nor Mr. Stapleton would have even been given the opportunity to develop your legal brilliance in a socialistic society and if you don't see that, you have likely lost some persepective.
K
Dear Mr. Kurgan:
Re: The Rape of Nanking, The Great Calamity and Bangladesh--yes, they did it too.
I would toss in all of the genocides of listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history.
But, I was trying to leave out murders to describe other depraved acts. The corporate crimes I listed were probably not intentional acts, but merely gross negligence. The point was that gross negligence on a great enough scale may be more depraved than murder and proportionality would not demand the death penalty for even our corporate criminals.
I am pretty much a CO on the death penalty. However, I am open to considering Mr. WC's suggestion that we make life without parole an option for CEO's. We would certainly have a unusually well funded Habeas process.
Dear Mr. WC,
Thank you for the support, but I am don't think my lens is a "socialist lens." I believe government will be corrupted by power elites so "socialism" will look a lot like what we have now. My lens is an "anti-capitalist lens" or a "anarcho-syndicalist lens" or a "distributist lens." I like socialists (generally better than I like Republicans) but the socialists I know are a much too loving and trusting crowd to live in this mean world.
Kurgan,
If I were to believe Cuba, for example, represents a true socialist model, I would agree I never would have had the opportunity to develop intellectually the way I have.
But remember, words are to be read through the lens of their author - remember my understanding of socialism is different than yours -if you remember in the dialectic model socialism will have competition of ideas - it is about slow and evolutionary change - it is a monkey thing - you will note both ed and I are monkey types - although I think I am cuter.
so long as the focus is on individual objectives individuals will be able to perverse their goal into abuses.
Now to be sure, many claiming to be socialists have done the same - the key is a clear social conscience for a positive morality.
Once society starts to think in terms of a social conscience - which is the essence of true liberty, they are no longer individualists and capitalism as we know it will not survive - capitalism is driven by personal gain and cannot survive in a world controlled by a higher level of social community driven morality.
Competition in the market place has brought us many great things - but when left unchecked by a moral compass it has brought us shame. The moral compass must come from the people and not the government
Bobby WC
Sensei,
I hear you. In fact, some of your listings went beyond gross negligence. I still agree with your assertions in first post and agree with SCOUS.
Again, just an observation on perspective and frame of reference.
And thank you for making my point on socialism better than I ever will.
K
BTW, the University of Minnesota Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies - http://chgs.umn.edu/ - is much better than Wiki, or am I exposing my inner liberal too much?
BW, I recently finished Habits of the Heart again. Your and Mr. Bellah would get along well.
"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is."
Thank you, Josey.
Ed,
I'm curious to read your arguments as to why the decision was correct. I have mixed feelings on the wisdom of the death penalty, but I cannot see how the Constitution can be read to prohibit it for aggravated felonies such as serial child molestation. In fact, there may be a better argument for killing molesters than for killing murderers. Most murderers are unlikely to kill again. On the other hand, I have yet to hear of an effective cure for pedophilia, and killing them may at least serve the social purpose of getting rid of them.
I'll admit that there are serious issues as to the morality of killing criminals, or as to the negative effect that government-sanctioned killing may have on our society as a whole, but those are policy questions for the legislature and not, in my opinion, Constitutional issues.
Do I understand that you are now advocating the execution of the Executives of Union Carbide, AT&T, IBM, Manville Corp. Ford Motor Co. and all Federal Govt officials who cast a vote supporting The War in Iraq?
I agree, kill ‘em all.
Post a Comment