I remember the stutter in his speech, the terror on his face, and the utter desperation in his voice. I remember his torn jeans and old, faded polo that told the story of a life of poverty and struggle. But, most of all, I remember the face of the man that sat just a few meters away from him. That man was his father, who seemed stone cold and emotionless, with his eyes staring straight ahead. His face conveyed that he truly knew regret.
His name was Obel Cruz-Garcia, and he raped and murdered two people. He was staring death row right in the eyes.
There are few things that have changed me as much as the month I spent interning at Texas Defender Service, a non-profit law firm that defends inmates on death row. I remember every single face in the courtroom on that day. I remember thinking to myself that the kid who sat on the witness stand was my age, yet while I would go home and worry about going to Georgetown, he would go home and worry about whether his testimony was good enough to save his father’s life and how he would take care of his family if his father was sentenced to death. So when Texas proudly celebrated its 500th execution in June, it hit me harder than I expected. 500 lives were terminated in the name of justice, 500 families were shattered to pieces.
I don’t identify strongly with many political issues, but watching Texas’s policy on death row in action moved me in ways I could never have expected.
We only get one life, one opportunity to find our place in the world. This is our only time to find love, friendship, and happiness. The intentional theft of that life is the greatest evil, no matter if it is done by a criminal or endorsed by the state. Even if the death penalty did deter crime—which is impossible to measure—we must not sacrifice life to stop someone else from committing a crime. Every person only has one life to call their own, and that life is theirs and theirs alone, not simply a tool to be used to better society.
There are many ways in which you can argue against the death penalty and the bloodthirsty attitude that accompanies it in this country.
You could stick to facts and simply remark how executions cost more money than life-long incarcerations and that juries have been known to convict the wrong person. Most of the time there is an incongruous relationship between white courtrooms and minority convicts.
What’s more, the United States is one of the leading countries in numbers of state-sanctioned murders. If you are sentimentally or spiritually inclined, there’s the fact that justice is supposed to reinstate balance in society, not inflame angry emotions and give in to revenge—which is what the death penalty is designed for. Absolution and redemption are not possible if we end someone’s life prematurely.
Lawmakers in Texas, it seems, are blind to these facts. Before making their verdicts, juries in Texas are instructed to ignore their passions, prejudices, and emotions when considering criminals facing the death penalty. They are told to evaluate nothing but the facts as they have been presented. But, it is the passions, prejudices, and emotions that make us human. Juries are told to destroy human lives just as easily as the criminals do. And yet, they celebrate the state sanctioned murder of 500 people as if others’ lives were inconsequential.
It is easy for most of us, as comparatively affluent Georgetown students, to misunderstand or judge the faces that are on the other side of the law. It is even easier for us to ignore and marginalize the 500 lives that have been terminated in the name of justice in Texas, and forget the families torn apart.
As college students, sometimes we forget about the world going on outside our little bubbles, beyond our social groups and classes. We tend to stress about classes and homework and forget that there are real people with real problems that never got the privilege to stress about classes or homework.
In reality, we are at the heart of the nation, the center of change and progress, and we have the power to alter who we are and what we are as a country.
We need to start looking beyond the walls of our school and start caring for the people with bigger problems and torn families. Our justice system and the way we carelessly execute citizens for their crimes demand our humanity immediately. Texas and every other state need our human passions, prejudices, and emotions, because now, they are robotic, state-sanctioned murder machines.
You are absolutely correct Jeremy!
The fact that the USA remains the world’s fifth top executioner (China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) is a scandal !!!
How else do you treat murders, rapist who have killed others. They do not deserve our mercy or support for the rest of their lives. Put them before firing squads. Don Grim
It is sad you are so Grim. Have you been paying attention to the number of people who have been released after 15, 20 or more years on death row as factually innocent? If for no other reason, we should not have the death penalty. There are many more, but that is, perhaps, the most cogent one.
Wow. Is this what passes for intelligent commentary? Apparently, a Georgetown education isn’t what it used to be, and it certainly isn’t worth the cost if this is what it produces.
Let’s start with the title. No one seriously argues that murder and execution are morally equal acts. I believe in capital punishment. Does that put me on the same moral level as a murderer–hardly. Nor is an executioner on the same moral level.
Now for the body:
“There are many ways in which you can argue against the death penalty and the bloodthirsty attitude that accompanies it in this country.”
Apparently ad hominem is one of the ways. In any event, the execution of a few dozens of murders every year in a nation of over 300 million hardly shows that the country has a “bloodthirsty attitude.”
“You could stick to facts and simply remark how executions cost more money than life-long incarcerations and that juries have been known to convict the wrong person.”
Well, yeah, it costs more to “get to death.” But death penalty savings are often unquantified—were there no death penalty, then LWOP plea bargains would largely be a thing of the past. The case of Ariel Foster leaps to mind. No study takes into account these cost savings. As for the fact that juries make mistakes, well, the death penalty ensures that the conviction will get a searching review for innocence.
“Most of the time there is an incongruous relationship between white courtrooms and minority convicts.”
What does that even mean? “Incongruous relationship”? Here’s a newsflash—white murderers are more likely to be executed than African-American killers.
“We tend to stress about classes and homework and forget that there are real people with real problems that never got the privilege to stress about classes or homework.”
Yeah, real people who chose to kill have real problems.
“Texas and every other state need our human passions, prejudices, and emotions, because now, they are robotic, state-sanctioned murder machines.”
As opposed to enlightened Massachusetts—which forces a demonstrably innocent man (Gerald Amirault) to endure a life on a sex-offender registry.
Jeremy, you should request a refund of your tuition.
Well Mr. “spob,” or should I say, Mr. “Person who Hasn’t Gotten Over the Georgetown Rejection,”
If you want to throw down, you’re gonna have to bring more game.
I find it amusing that you’re the first to criticize Jeremy for ad hominem attacks, when you open your lovely post with “Apparently, a Georgetown education isn’t what it used to be” and finish with an even nicer “Jeremy, you should request a refund of your tuition.” I’m feeling the love here.
Now for the body,
You say “the execution of a few dozens of murders every year in a nation of over 300 million hardly shows that the country has a “bloodthirsty attitude.””
But this seems to feed Jeremy’s point directly. If “every person only has one life to call their own, and that life is theirs and theirs alone, not simply a tool to be used to better society,” then it doesn’t matter whether we execute a few dozen or a few thousand people–it’s still wrong. The fact that you trivialize the “few dozen” people executed as if that number is insignificant exemplifies Jeremy’s argument that the death penalty is rooted in a lack of concern for human life.
Then you say, “Well, yeah, it costs more to “get to death.” But death penalty savings are often unquantified—were there no death penalty, then LWOP plea bargains would largely be a thing of the past. The case of Ariel Foster leaps to mind. No study takes into account these cost savings.”
No study should have to take into account these cost savings, spobby. Congratulations, you trivialize human lives to save Uncle Sam some pocket change–now he’s not just a murderer, but a rich one too.
“As for the fact that juries make mistakes, well, the death penalty ensures that the conviction will get a searching review for innocence.”
Yes, spobbity. There is a searching review, it doesn’t catch all the mistakes, and innocent people still end up getting slaughtered by the state.
“What does that even mean? “Incongruous relationship”?”
Maybe if you studied your vocabulary a little more, you would have done better on the SAT and could have gotten into Georgetown. But let me have Mr. Webster answer your question:
Incongrous: lacking congruity: as
a : not harmonious : incompatible
b : not conforming : disagreeing
AND:
Relationship: the state of being related or interrelated
So, to break Jeremy’s phrase down into layman’s terms, the white jurors don’t like the minority killers, much like how I don’t like you.
“Here’s a newsflash—white murderers are more likely to be executed than African-American killers.”
Another newsflash–because we have a black president, racism is a thing of the past.
“As opposed to enlightened Massachusetts—which forces a demonstrably innocent man (Gerald Amirault) to endure a life on a sex-offender registry.”
You can take someone off a sex-offender registry, you can’t take them out of a prison grave.
-E. Smith Out
It makes me physically SICK to read this… NOT ONE SINGLE CONSIDERATION given to the VICTIMS or THEIR FAMILIES! Each one of these BARBAROUS MONSTERS – PAINFULLY AND BRUTALLY EXECUTED THEIR VICTIMS!!! You speak only of the Pain and Suffering of their families – in losing the MURDERER… But not one word, of the HORROR and AGONY each MURDERER has sentenced the families of THEIR VICTIMS to LIVE WITH EACH MOMENT OF EVERY DAY… The MULTIPLE RUINED LIVES attached to each MURDERED VICTIM from these Murderers… Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, best friends – grandparents, aunts and uncles, – each and every person attached to a Murdered VICTIM is DIRECTLY AFFECTED – FOREVER! This one single MURDERER has directly affected ALL THESE LIVES TOO – by taking an innocent one. We Victims, are not asking for barbarous murder. But we do demand EQUAL JUSTICE. Each murderer – MADE THE CHOICE TO KILL. Made his own choice, to EXECUTE THE VICTIM AND TAKE A LIFE. The MURDERER’s families will live EQUALLY – just as the Victim’s families HAVE NO CHOICE OF DOING… All I would have to say to a MURDERER’S family – is the same thing I GET EVERY DAY:
I’M SURE HE’S IN A BETTER PLACE…
What I remember – Are my daughters SCREAMS as she was being STABBED TO DEATH… The gaping bloody holes in Saskia’s cheeks, the look of HORROR and such TERROR frozen on my daughters dead face… MY UTTER DESPERATION FOR HER NOT TO BE DEAD IN THAT MOMENT… And the SMILE ON WILLIAM GARY SIMPSON’S FACE IN CELEBRATION OF HIS SUCCESS IN KILLING HER, SIMPSON CONTINUING TO WEAR THAT SAME SMILE AS HE STABBED AND STABBED AND STABBED – AND TRIED TO KILL US ALL!!!!! Simpson didn’t live in poverty – he was given every advantage… His parents paid the tuition for the college classes he took – SWORD FIGHTING AND SELF DEFENSE – the classes he only took in preparation for HIS ATTACK UPON OUR FAMILY! The attack he PLANNED, PRACTICED FOR – and WAITED UNTIL ALL THE CHILDREN CAME HOME ON CHRISTMAS BREAK – to EXECUTE US ALL!
William Gary Simpson came to kill us – because HIS mommy and daddy do not love him, as we love our children… Because Simpson did not love HIS parents, the way our children love us… MY SASKIA WAS SO BRUTALLY SLAUGHTERED, ONLY – because we love her…
It’s an upside down, inside out NIGHTMARE world I live in – that ANYONE would defend THIS MONSTER, EVER!
First, my deepest sympathy and condolences to all the victims of violence crimes and their families. However, reading the article I don’t see any defending of murderers. It simply suggests that all deaths are tragic and capital punishment is not a solution. We are always proud to be a human right leader and a compassionate country. Yet, in this aspect we are behind many of the western European countries, who have proven that abandon capital punishment does not affect crime rate.
E. Smith, cute little rant. Maybe that gets you that gentlemen’s A- at G-town. In any event, I didn’t bother applying to G-town; I got into my school of choice after serving in the military.
Let’s start with a little lesson in reading. There’s a difference between an ad hominem attack, e.g., “You’re a Nazi,” and ad hominem argument, e.g., “What you wrote is wrong because you’re a Nazi.” You apparently missed that difference when you read my reference to Jeremy’s ad hominem argument. I’ll admit it was a little esoteric, but a little focus next time on antecedents will do you some good. Perhaps you missed it because I quickly pivoted to the silliness of the bloodthirsty reference. The North Korean regime is bloodthirsty. The US has a population approximately 15 times that of North Korea, but we execute but a tiny fraction of people compared to that monstrous regime. That fact by itself shows the ridiculousness of the attribution of “bloodthirsty.” And no, the over the top rhetoric isn’t saved (as you seem to think) by the fact that Jeremy wants to drive home the point that none of us have the right to end a murderer’s life. The argument that all killing is wrong is not bolstered by calling those who believe in capital punishment “bloodthirsty” any more than an argument that all premarital sexual relations are wrong is bolstered by calling a woman who is faithful to her boyfriend a slut.
And I’ll continue that lesson (the antecedent of “that lesson” is a “little lesson in reading”) when it comes to the awkward phrase “incongruous relationship” to describe the interaction between a white jury and minority defendants. Breaking out the Webster’s doesn’t render an awkward phrase cogent. It’s not entirely clear that Jeremy meant that white jurors don’t like minority defendants–he could have meant that white jurors often lack the same experiences as minority defendants. Whatever. I simply took it as an imputation of racism to the justice system. And I see you cannot refute my factual point of who gets executed in America.
Now let’s proceed to a little lesson in writing: “But this seems to feed Jeremy’s point directly.” I bet that sounded good when you read it aloud, but usually people don’t write in terms of feeding a point, or feeding a point directly (as opposed to feeding a point indirectly.) As for your point about “trivializing” etc., perhaps you feel that way–but those of us in the real world know how to put things in context. More people in America are murdered every year by those who have gone to prison for murder and gotten out than are executed. By any standard, that fact is more troublesome than the handful of executions every year.
Apparently, you missed my point about Massachusetts. Jeremy mentioned Texas by name and yapped about “state-sanctioned murder” (a phrase, by the by, more descriptive of callous policies that allow violent criminals to be released to wreak havoc on the innocent than the execution of murderers). Perhaps Texas is all of the things Jeremy says, but if we are going to talk about morality here, it is axiomatic that keeping a demonstrably innocent man in virtual chains is far more of a moral outrage than the execution of 500 murderers. (I’ll deal with the innocence issue later.)
And with respect to costs–can you at least stick to the point? Jeremy raised the cost issue, and I pointed out that there are costs that aren’t quantified in all those “studies” about the costs of capital punishment. And your argument is that certain costs shouldn’t be counted? Huh? Perhaps you’re right–in a vacuum–but if someone is going to argue that LWOP is cheaper, certainly a counterargument that there are hidden costs to abolishing the death penalty is fair game. If costs are irrelevant to you–fine, but I didn’t raise the costs issue.
As for innocence, that is probably the strongest argument against the death penalty. Of course, there is always the risk of a mistake–but that’s true of everything in life. The police kill innocent people all the time. Should we disarm cops? My point, which really isn’t something that sways me, is that the system gives death cases searching review. Hence, if you are innocent and convicted of murder, you have a much better chance of getting out eventually if you are sentenced to death. (Personally, I am happy with the scrutiny given to the justice system by people like Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project.)
My sense is that you are too arrogant to understand that you just got your butt handed to you. So, I will make you a little dare. Why don’t you show this to your parents? If you get that “Yeah, honey, you’re smarter than he is.” from your mom (you know, with the same kinda tone of voice you got when she bucked you up after some pathetic performance in sports) you’ll know you lost this one. (Maybe, I am wrong and you were some kind of jock growing up, but frankly, the tone of your screed suggests otherwise.)
“spob” I want to first start by telling you to stop calling out the people writing the article and comments on their personal attributes and decisions, e.g. picking Georgetown and telling them to find assurance in their mothers, and simply address the issue at hand in an intellectual manner. Your ad hominem reference against Jeremy’s attendance of Georgetown was not esoteric; it was plain ignorance. Anyway moving on.
1) Race: the incongruous relationships Jeremy refers to have nothing to do with how many white people are convicted and given the death penalty. Jeremy is against the death penalty completely so those stats are completely irrelevant. Instead, Jeremy is speaking specifically about the culture that he was working with when he worked at this non-for-profit firm and helped low income minorities with whom most upperclass Texas jury members have a hard time relating.
2) Your response to why its bad about “more people dying…” is completely irrelevant because you are just playing a numbers game. The irony is that you appeal to morality in your attacks at Jeremy’s character and the article; however, you overlook a very general tenant of preservation of life. No where does this suggest weighing the numbers. Furthermore, Jeremy supplies numerous emotional and logical appeals for why each life is equally valuable and should not be weighed against the actions they take. Before attacking the conclusion of an argument, please supply counter justifications to your claim first.
3) Jeremy didn’t “yap” about Texas. Jeremy was born and raised in Texas, and as this article is in large part a way of conveying his personal experiences and attempting to convey his sentiments to the public, it only makes sense that Jeremy would reference that which he knows and understands: Texas and its laws.
4) Cost, you want to move past this, and since I don’t like placing a price tag on people’s lives, unlike a recent Fox News analyst, so lets move on.
5) Innocence: I frankly don’t think there are degrees to strength of arguments against the death penalty; they are all equally sound, justifiable, and strong; however, justifying killing innocent people by referencing other instances in which innocent people are killing is ludicrous. If cops screw up and kill innocent people, there should be reform to stop cops from killing people unless their own lives are in clearly imminent danger, at which point it is clear that they can employ self defense because, for the most part, the assailant wouldn’t be attacking if they were innocent. In both scenarios we should not condone the death because its instrumental to the system that are already in place, but rather, we should seek reformations that allow for those deaths to be avoiding, such as abolishing the death penalty.
Oh I get it–smearing people who support capital punishment as “no better than the criminals we condemn” is ok ad hominem, but pointing out that a Georgetown student should think clearer and write better is somehow not being intellectual and bad ad hominem.
What is amazing to me is how the death penalty clouds thinking. Your post is emblematic of that phenomenon. With respect to cops killing people mistakenly, the issue is not that it justifies executions, but rather it rebuts the argument that mistakes happen so therefore we cannot have a death penalty (of course, never mind that no one has been proven to have been wrongfully executed since capital punishment restarted in 1976). Mistakes happen in every human process, and if the idea is that we cannot do capital punishment because of the possibility that a mistake could happen, then pointing out other scenarios where mistaken deaths could happen is completely valid.
There’s also this quote:
“Your response to why its bad about ‘more people dying…’ is completely irrelevant because you are just playing a numbers game. The irony is that you appeal to morality in your attacks at Jeremy’s character and the article; however, you overlook a very general tenant [sic] of preservation of life. No where [sic] does this suggest weighing the numbers.”
At the risk of being tedious, the issue is not a “numbers game” or whether I am overlooking some ethic about the sanctity of life. My point is that Jeremy is employing over the top rhetoric about bloodthirstiness about a relatively small number of executions. (Of course, I am surmising that, for some reason, Jeremy is far more worked-up about the execution of murderers than he is about say, partial birth abortion of viable healthy fetuses.) This dovetails with my point about people in the real world having a sense of proportion. Now, of course, if one has the point of view that all life is sacred (a view I don’t share), then an argument that a relatively small number of killings is going to fall on deaf ears. I get that—but that’s not my point. I am simply criticizing the over the top rhetoric about bloodthirstiness and pointing out that there are things far more outrageous to get worked up about. It’s called perspective—and it’s something that seems in very short supply here.
You also oddly argue that because Jeremy is opposed to capital punishment in all cases that somehow his injection of race should just be left alone. In other words (paraphrasing):
Jeremy: the death penalty is racist against minority defendants.
Me: Well, take a look at who actually gets executed.
You: Race is irrelevant.
Also interesting that you don’t even bother defending the awkward construction: “incongruous relationship.”
Your defense of his reference to Texas is curious. You write that he only referred to Texas–but that’s just not the case–he wrote: “Texas and every other state . . . .” My point, of course, is that the specific reference to Texas (remember, Texas was a focus of his piece) as somehow a bad actor should be taken in the context of another state’s violation of fundamental principles of justice. I’ll put it to you explicitly–what’s worse, Texas’ execution of a murderer or what Massachusetts is doing to Gerald Amirault?
With respect to costs, are you saying Jeremy’s argument is invalid? Or just saying that I cannot attack it.
Frankly, I am surprised at the weakness of the responses here. I get that you guys are college students, but your ability to argue logically and coherently should be better developed. A good place to start would be to learn the difference between a derogatory comment and an ad hominem argument.
I don’t wish to continue this discussion much further because it’s already clear that there will be running around in circles; however, I do want to clear up some issues you had with my statements that made you less than comfortable viewing them as credibly as they deserved.
1) Perhaps Jeremy’s article should have titled “death penalty equates to the actions of the criminals we condemn” at which point you would realize that this is not much of an ad hominem but an assimilation between two wrongful acts.
2) Yes mistakes happen in every human system, and the argument we are proposing is that the death penalty in its totality is one of the mistakes. At the very best, your argument would serve only to illustrate that other actions have wrongful deaths, but that doesn’t justify the death penalty when our argument is that all murders, defined simply as the killing of a person, are wrongful. Maybe you don’t want to enter that discussion which is why you dance around the issue, but the instrumental value of human life is what I frequently touch upon, the innocence is only an additionally layer to that.
3) It is not evident that Jeremy is not more worked up about this than abortion or other possible discussions. As I explained earlier, this is the issue Jeremy was directly involved with, so he has every right to discussion capital punishment and not abortion. But for the over-the-top rhetoric that you said is your real issue. My understanding, although I have admittedly not consulted Jeremy about it in particular, of the bloodthirsty is not that we want to go out and kill every murderer, but rather, that we feel that the blood criminal is the only way compensate for the blood lost of the victims. If this understanding is right, which I think it is, then it is not, in fact, over the top at all in the sense that the system has a “thirst” for the “blood” of the criminal.
4) My discussion of race in no way said that it was irrelevant. If that is what you gathered, I strongly suggest you reread my previous comment because perhaps overlook is what caused so much confusion thus far. My argument was that the amount of white people who receive the death penalty are irrelevant to the discussion because there are still plenty of minorities who receive, and they are the people with whom Jeremy worked. The defense of “incongruous relationships” was directly explained, they white jury members still do not understand or relate to the minorities with which Jeremy worked.
5) My explanation of Texas is that his references are in large part based of his experience, and thus, about Texas, but because other states have capital punishment, he is allowed to make the correlation, and I do not want to get into a discussion about weighing different bad actions because I don’t think it changes the impact of my argument that capital punishment is bad.
6) You referenced irrelevance of cost, and I explained why in large part they shouldn’t be relevant at all, but if they are relevant, yes I would probably comment the same issue you predicted to be your opposition.
7) Again with the ad hominem….seriously way to go. Begin and end with a bang. Like I said, I do not wish to continue this discussion much further, but I hope you enjoy these clarifications, and perhaps in the future, you will engage arguments substantively only rather than attacking the people you are arguing with the whole way. I strongly recommend you reread my previous comment because I think you missed a lot. And if in fact you are being derogatory rather than producing ad hominems, which I don’t think are mutually exclusive, that’s still not an effective way to enter into a discussion. I believe that our arguments are strong but as your desire to be right “clouds thinking.”
I could not reply to your comment below so I’ll post this here:
“At the very best, your argument would serve only to illustrate that other actions have wrongful deaths, but that doesn’t justify the death penalty when our argument is that all murders, defined simply as the killing of a person, are wrongful.”
“murder” is a very specific legal term and means the unlawful taking of another human life with premeditation. There are plenty of other words available to describe the result of a legal execution and lesser degrees of homicide. There are those who wrongly use the word “murder” to vilify the State (where executions are legal) and/or those that support the death penalty. They believe it makes them look morally superior when it actually makes them appear uneducated at best. I sincerely hope this is not the case in your misuse of the word.
One other error (of the many) I found in your post:
“And if in fact you are being derogatory rather than producing ad hominems, which I don’t think are mutually exclusive, that’s still not an effective way to enter into a discussion. ”
Just the fact that you “don’t think” they are mutually exclusive does not mean that sometimes they might be as the words are only synonymous in certain use cases. I will not argue the rest of your statement(s) at this time but it seems you may have some problem with definitions of words. I would suggest ample use of ‘Google’.
This is a Voice of an eighteen years old freshman. It would be a very scary world to live in if all of our eighteen years old think that taking one’s life is a right thing to do (state sanctioned or otherwise).
Good job, Jeremy and Welcome to Georgetown. You have chosen well. This is a right place for people like you. I am looking forward to read more of your works.
Jace, good grief. I didn’t miss anything in your piece. I get your point of view–capital punishment is simply wrong because all life is sacred. That’s not a difficult concept. And I wouldn’t try to argue you out of it because it’s futile to argue against a belief system.
But Jeremy’s post went beyond simply stating that the death penalty is wrong–he mustered other arguments, innocence, cost, racism, effect on families etc. My responses have attacked those other arguments.
I see though that I am making some headway. You won’t come out and say it, of course, but your lame defense of “bloodthirsty” pretty much tells any objective reader of these posts that you have packed it in. The use of “bloodthirsty” to describe a 10-20 year process to execute a murderer in a handful of cases is pretty far from “bloodthirsty.” You know it; I know it, and Jeremy knows it—and this is especially so when compared to something like partial-birth abortion, which should be far far more outrageous to anyone who believes that human life is sacred. Of course, I can slog through all of the stuff you wrote (e.g., “at which point you would realize that this is not much of an ad hominem but an assimilation between two wrongful acts”–whatever that means–do they teach basic composition at Georgetown?) and not find a single rebuttal of that point.
With respect to race, Jeremy’s piece did raise the specter of racial bias on the part of “white courtrooms.” Pointing out that white murderers are more likely to get executed is relevant to that discussion. I know you guys don’t like to face facts and would rather stay in that cocoon of self-righteousness, but facts are stubborn things.
This is laugh out loud funny: “I do not want to get into a discussion about weighing different bad actions because I don’t think it changes the impact of my argument that capital punishment is bad.” Well, of course you don’t. Capital punishment may be bad, but it’s certainly fair game, when reading a piece with over the top commentary about capital punishment, to point out silence in the face of worse abuses by similar actors. Figuratively sticking a finger in each ear and saying “I can’t hear you, la la la la” is simply weak.
I’ll let the rest of the posts speak for themselves. I will note one thing–the idea that I have not engaged substantively with the posts in here is ludicrous. I have. The problem is that you guys can’t address them head-on, so you whine about my attacks.
i love candy
In addition to the death penalty being a violent and needless act of ritual homicide that drains public funds and human effort from the constructive tasts of making our streets safer and preventing violent crime, there is the fact that it harms survivors of murder victims, the very people it is often said to honor or “heal” in some way.
This is why victim advocates such as Kathleen M. Garcia have testified in favor of abolishing the death penalty and ensuring that our worst crimes get swift and certain sentences of life without parole.
Even if a case goes to trial rather than being plea bargained, a murder trial where life without parole rather than death is the sought penalty is generally far less expensive. This is true, in part, simply because there’s no need to “death qualify” a jury, probling into the conscientious scruples that disqualify many otherwise tried, true, and able citizens from serving because of their unwillingness to decree the death of another human being. Nor are there the myriad of legal issues and complications which are unique to a death penalty proceeding. Trials where life without parole is the punishment sought for murder are much simpler, and cheaper, letting public funds go into law enforcement and also preventative mental health and domestic violence programs.
The appeals process in capital cases, prolonged both because of the irrevocable nature of the punishment and the especially intricate issues (involving penalty as well as guilt) it presents for appellate courts, drastically prolongs the painful journey of murder survivors through the criminal justice system, and serves as a most inferior substitute for real victims’ services of the kind sought by organizations such as Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation and Murder Victims Families for Human Rights.
Neither the criminal justice system nor any other intervention by society can bring “closure” to survivors — a term which many survivors warn against as misleading and failing to recognize the reality of their lifelong pain.
However, life without parole offers a much faster “case closed,” letting survivors return to private life and continue with their healing, without more legal proceedings in a gladiatorial circus of life and death reopening their wounds — often repeatedly, over a period of decades.
In a system where 4% of capital convictions may be of the innocent, and the truth may take 20 or 30 years to emerge, life without parole is most respectful of the value of life, our own better values of nonviolence, our sense of humble human fallibility, and also the needs of murder survivors to receive real services.