death penalty news June 9, 2004
NOTE: -- sorry friends, I should have posted this and the CON article together -- USA: PRO: To be or not to be, that is the question Editor's note: David Paul Hammer, a federal death row inmate, was scheduled for death by lethal injection this week at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute. However, Hammer was granted a stay of execution by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court last Thursday. Even though the execution is not presently going forward, we feel that coverage is appropriate given the local and national relevance of the topic of capital punishment. That's why today's Opinions section consists of a point/counterpoint analysis of the issue. Let it be known first that I haven't any intention to bother the reader with the "an eye for an eye" routine, although I'll hint around to it. No, it must be understood rather that when considering a view on the death penalty, one ought to be as objective as possible. It is a good idea, you know, as it cancels out any bias perspective one previously held in a former day's accumulated mindset. To ever consider yourself, or to be considered, a clear thinker, or to possess traits of wisdom, reared personal beliefs (and by God this does include religion!) must always be left aside so that the water in the river of questions remains clear - not a Wabash. Alas, we each know how difficult this is, as we hear and discourage ignorance aloud or silently everywhere and we notice it when we look into the mirror, maybe. In this case of death, the accused thought it best to end someone's life. Thus, should it not be only fair to treat the accused likewise and without remorse? What does not hinder a possible guilty conscious is that by collecting reason, the accused felt it necessary to end a life, so it is therefore just as necessary to rebound such cruel thought. Think of it scientifically - when you exert a force upon an object, like a door, the force applied is returned to you with the same amount of energy. In this case you would not break your wrist, but be put to death. Let's face it; cruel murder is not a lesson that can be learned from, even at the wise expense of tax dollars. Should any reader remember the execution of Timothy McVeigh, know that many people showed up in sympathy to protest and this is sad. It is sad on two accounts; first, that those folks were, by being death penalty abolitionists, indirectly supporting the right in the Oklahoma City Bombing. Secondly, they wasted their valuable time. (Life is precious.) This waste has two variables as well. One is that the death penalty exists or is struck down by the will of the people through those whom we vote for to represent us. Recent polling reports indicate that 48 percent say the DP is not used enough; 23 percent say too often; and 25 percent say it is used at the right amount. This is America, life of the majority, so deal with it. The other variable to waste is perhaps life is so precious we cannot afford in the end to be wrong or misguided. If I had a chance I would have suggested to the protestors to retire into an isolated wood for a quiet sit (with a beer or eight perhaps), pull a Huck Finn and "turn over in one's head" the wonderments of our intricate world and mankind's actions, trying in some way for effect to find Emerson's "transparent eyeball" and to wear it a while. Honestly now folks, these persons are being executed not because they are petty murderers who have made a mistake but are judged so based on an extremely heinous crime. By not appreciating the evildoer we in return appreciate the life of the victim. What I am getting at is that one must be objective in thinking without prejudices or bias perception - to take off one's political and religious hats that would suffocate the oxygen out of one's head. It is widely and with experience known that in a fog things sound different and shallow, without a sense of direction. What follows in my argument from here are both facts and tidbits of prudence to bring credit and respect to the capabilities of freely found thought. We cannot afford, literally too, to be liberal on this subject. "To each their own" does not cut it here, as no "way" as Taoism might have it that kills without a rationale to void themselves of a similar punishment is this: not at all a good way, especially to go about life. Some argue that the death penalty does not deter murder, but you know prisons do not deter crime either, so go and play on with it if you'd like. Another argument against the death penalty is the play of the race card and the wrongfully accused. Ever since the beginning of recorded history, this has been the case by and by and that surely sucks, although, presently in the modern world, it is an invalid argument. Since the Civil Rights Movement we have come a long way and thus racial prejudices in U.S. courts no longer exist. Forensic investigations and other helpful technologies also greatly deter mistakes. So now that I possibly may have a few readers in an open-minded muse, let us dine on this idea: the golden rule. I will use the Confucian version which is the negative: "Do not do to others what you'd not like them do to you." You couldn't convince me that a murderer wouldn't mind to die before they do their ungodly deed. No, it is likely afterward that they would wish to die-that's guilt you know. One could even twist the golden rule against executioners by saying: "Hey, why would we execute the accused, for we'd not like it done to us." That is a wimp talking. It is a matter of honor and integrity. Paul, one of Christ's disciples, is written to have said: "For if I am an offender or have committed anything deserving death, I do not object to dying." So look it, Jesus took it, as did Brutus, Socrates and a few of King Henry VII's wives. Though only Brutus was well to die, I cannot recall reading any of them being bitches about it. Back then people had spines - they lived and died with honor and dignity, all with their chivalrous ardor or aspects close to that of an Eastern gentleman. Today it seems folks are weak, and why? Because life is precious. In modern times we execute those who violate the golden rule (or those who do not shoot themselves in the head afterwards.) It is right to grant no sympathy for the weak, least those who have a capable mind. If the human mind, though, can be rehabilitated, it certainly shan't be done in a jailhouse. If the individual can be saved with life in prison, than what sort of God is that? Hence, since we are a dominantly Christian nation, I think I might pick on the Bible awhile. Although the Bible is indeed a "good book" for a laugh or salvation, however one takes it, it contradicts its morals often. The Bible is so swell, it's universal - it can be used to argue on both sides of many situations, say homosexuality, alcohol and death for instance. When Christian Mediterranean leaders put the book together in the fourth century, I wonder if they noticed any of the paradoxes, (as the scientific errors must be forgiven...they hadn't many geologists at that time.) The poles apart I'll refer to is death, of course. Christians and Jews alike might argue the good ol' sixth commandment, which of course states: "Thou shall not kill." Sounds good, but historical and present day events suggest that no one cares about this amendment, so let's discount it. I won't bother with anti-DP segments of the Bible, I'm sure you got a few in your head already, but let's nibble on a couple pro-DP. Out of Revelations comes "He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword." In Exodus 21:12 it states: "He who strikes a man to death shall be surely put to death." Although the popular Wicca saying goes "what comes around goes around," I prefer rather the Islamic take...it is the most fair. In the case of murder with due process the victim's family or legal heirs can choose from three Islamic law options: 1) They can request death as penalty. 2) They can request blood money or compensation. 3) They can simply pardon the murderer. Pardon for murder seems to me crazy, as much as a humanist I feel I am. The U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article Three states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of a person." Practice what you preach. For instance, why didn't the U.N. step in to liberate Iraq or why don't they act against violators of these human rights who are connected with NAFTA or other outsourcing? Hypocrisy is a dirty thing and money pays. Although I approve of the death penalty, I'll close with one thing I hold against it - its procedures. There is lethal injection and the electric chair still in this country, both causing the victim to die from the inside out. Perhaps a good hanging will do; it is cheaper and, without the gore, effective. So how 'bout it? Level with me - an eye for an eye. (source: Opinion, Indiana Statesman)
