This post is an expansion of a comment in a thread way down below. Partly because my monkeying with my code this morning put a crimp in my morning blogging schedule. Partly because the subject deserves it.
I oppose the death penalty, not because I break with most conservatives on the issue, but because I am a conservative.
Stay with me on this one.
Conservatism is about upholding time-honored truths.
One of those truths is that the individual – one of the “Free Association of Equals” that our society is supposed to be, in the conservative view of things – is of supreme importance, and should be protected from the excesses of government. It’s why we conservative natter on about things like the Tenth Amendment – because we uphold the worth of the individual; there are some things that, to protect the individual, the government should just stay out of.
This directly contradicts the notion that individuals are “eggs” to be broken in the interest of the state’s convenience to make a social “omelet”. Frequent liberal commenter “RickDFL”’s left a remark in the comment section yesterday, that actually sent me looking for a remark about eggs and omelets that I coulda sworn Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Hitler made. No dice – the closest I got was Stalin’s “one death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic” – but Rick (I puke in my mouth a little bit in writing this) is right; it’s something one of them would say.
Conservatives do believe that the pursuit of good requires sacrifice; the Americans who died at Omaha Beach and Gettysburg and Chosin Reservoir were also of incalculable value, and they did nothing to deserve what happened except serving their country, and their loss was a tragedy for all of us. But they died (most of us believe) for a greater good, in a time and a place and for a cause for which there was no alternative, and which helped bring immense good as a result.
Killing an innocent person to “deter” the guilty? It brings no good (the guilty party goes free forever!) (I mean, what DA is going to say “oops – killed the wrong guy the first time! Let’s try this again!”), there is an alternative, and, lest we forget, it kills an individual who did no wrong – which is exactly who this society is supposed to protect.
And it echoes Andrea Dworkin (or Catherine McKinnon? Jeff Fecke? I get confused) who said it’d be “good” if men got falsely imprisoned for rape, to make all the real rapists a little more afraid. It’s an idea straight out of the worst of the French Revolution (which had no problem executing the innocent “pour l’encourager les autres“), carried on via Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot.
Hypothetically, if the system could be “perfected”, would I support it? Sure. But that’s another tenet of conservatism; mankind can never be perfected; the hypothetical is pointless. And to a conservative, protecting people from the problems that human imperfection brings to government drives what government is supposed to do – including impelling government to back out of big parts of our society.
So since…
- Mankind – including prosecutors and the police – can never be perfected, and…
- these imperfections kill the innocent, and…
- killing the innocent is immeasurably evil, and…
- since a foolproof alternative exists that surely and swiftly punishes the guilty (remember – life in supermax without parole begins at sentencing; death takes an average of 12 years) while protecting the innocent, and…
- protecting the innocent is one of society’s supreme goods, then…
…abolishing the death penalty is supremely conservative.
To me, the logic of my stance depends on the five interconnected points above – all drawn from orthodox conservative beliefs to a finely-polished “t”. If you want to disagree, by all means do it in the comment section. But if you can’t successfully attack that five-point chain of logic, I’m not sure you’ll get a lot of traction with me.
I think that you are going all charles-johnson on us.
Any anti-creationist rants lying around in the drafts folder?
No, going all C-Jo would involve banning you for bringing it up.
And I’ve written in the past that I believe that science and an allegorical reading of the Bible upholds both science and the creation story.
Nothing like a good concentric rhubarb on a rainy Friday!
The late Pope John Paul II would broaden your point 3 above, as well as adding in a point 3.5.
Paraphrasing his logic to conform to your list…
3. Killing any human life is always evil (even if it is justified and therefore not a sin).
3.5. Doing evil harms the evil-doer as well as any more obvious victim(s).
With those adjustments your logic pretty closely conforms to his. It was a big part of his “culture of life / culture of death” dichotomy which seems more remembered for its points about abortion nowadays, but was also about capital punishment, euthenasia, and all the other situations where a human life might be intentionally destroyed.
I agree with you, Mitch. The problematic part is 4, but only because life without parole rarely is. That’s a problem with administration, not with logic.
I’m with Mitch and John Paul II too. It’s hard to be pro-life and support capital punishment even though some can find justification for the latter in The Bible.
Mitch:
I could not find the quote either. It may be apocraphal.
Here is the best reference I could find:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0354/is_3_45/ai_n6140122/
“LEGEND HAS IT that in the early 1920s one of Vladimir Lenin’s fellow Bolsheviks asked him to justify the growing number of atrocities they were committing in the name of a socialist future. “If you want to make an omelet,” Lenin insisted, “you have to be willing to break a few eggs.” To which the Bolshevik replied, “Comrade, I see the broken eggs everywhere. But where, oh where, is the omelet?””
Here’s my conservative argument in favor of the death penalty. [I’m a die-hard conservative now. K-Rod has shown me the error of my ways. But bear with me, I’m new at it.]
1. Conservatives believe reduction of government is good.
2. The government is made up of people.
3. Anything that reduces the number of people reduces the government.
4. Capital Punishment reduces the number of people.
THEREFORE: Capital Punishment is good.
I’m still working on it. I need to add the part that keeps me alive until last. Also, according to this I may support a public option health care system but only if it includes death panels.
[If you’re looking for a serious comment, I believe the death penalty is too expensive and not cost efficient which renders the moral argument against it unnecessary (but probably valid).]
I don’t get it.
Conservatism is built on the idea that all things being equal, our God given rights as individuals should never be trumped by the needs and wants of the collective (the State).
We make common sense allowances in law to ensure societal order, and we acknowledge that some limited collectivism is necessary to protect and serve us as sovereign individuals (like taxation to support the military, streets, police, fire & etc.). But we hold our worth as human beings inviolate.
How does our very lives not meet that minimum standard?
I am not afraid to make an omelet.
I am willing to take my chances if one innocent is wrongly sentenced to death out hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of innocents.
Yes, at 1 out of 1 billion, I am ready to roll that pair o’ dice.
I am not afraid.
Perfection can’t be attained, berg, and we are glad you didn’t wait to get the blog perfected before you put that temp design to rest. Yes, it was ugly.
I hope you can someday confront your fears and make an omelet. 😉
Krod,
With all due respect, repating cliches is not an argument! The “eggs and omelets” bit in particular is straight out of Lenin, and whether you’re “afraid” or not has no bearing on anything.
And you keep referring to “fear”, as if calling someone “afraid” trumps fact, to say nothing of of 300 years of conservative philosophy.
And nobody lives or dies based on the design of my blog.
So what if YOU, Krod, are the egg? What if YOU are the one wrongly accused, sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence that convinces a jury even though it’s utterly wrong? Will you be quite as blase about “eggs” and “omelets” then?
“K-Rod has shown me the error of my ways.”
No problem, I’m used to it; it’s not the first time it’s happened and it won’t be the last.
I am glad I could help! 8)
Yes, berg, at one in a billion odds, I am ready to take my chances. That is not to say I wouldn’t defend my innocence, but, I repeat, I am not afraid.
What next, berg supports banning bathtubs and autos because some innocent people might die? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Chin up there lil’ buddy, life isn’t fair sometimes and, yes, life can be dangerous.
As for the religious aspects, what if Rome forbid capital punishment over 2000 years ago? Obviously in today’s society, Jesus would not have been put to death by crucifixion.
Krod drooled:
“I am willing to take my chances …”
I am not. And neither is anyone else who is not a complete psycho.
Or, alternatively: you first.
Jeebus. Where is Angryclown when you *really* need him?
What Foot said.
Closed circuit to Foot: Is that slam on the psycho community retribution for my indelicate reference to the broke back community? 😉
I’d love to see AC weigh in as well, in his inimitable style.
Billion to one? And where do THOSE ridiculous odds come from? Clearly, the chances of executing an innocent person are much, much higher than that; more in some places than other, but in all places distinctly higher. I can only hope that KR is not advocating the executions of billions of people. Or conveniently ignoring any facts that contradict his ideology.
Your five points of logic would define me as a conservative on this issue then Mitch. Well reasoned, well argued; take a bow! (applause, applause)
The burbot cried and said he is afraid to make and omelet, siftee is a chicken as well.
It’s raining outside, I suggest y’all stay inside since there is a chance for lightening. And my all means, don’t operate a motorized vehicle!!!!
I agree that the odds of being put to death for a crime you had nothing to do with are ridiculously low.
I am not afraid to take my chances, especially when the odds of putting an innocent person to death is probably close to one in a billion.
I think you’re mathematically challenged, K, if we’ve got statistical evidence that 250+ known false positives out of a population of less than 350M equates to a 1 in 1B.
Krod,
For starters, it’s not a “billion to one”. I gave you the numbers yesterday; 244 wrongful convictions that we know of so far out of 7,000 death sentences, which which is basically one out of every 25 or 30.
And yukking it up about “fear” may pass for an argument on Anti-Strib, but I shoot for a lot better over here. As to the omelet bit – you do realize that you’re echoing Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Robespierre and that whole crew, right?
So Krod, I’m gonna ask you a question here, and I’d appreciate a response that doesn’t involve any Anti-Strib slang.
I just gave a five-point conservative case against the Death Penalty. Since you are a conservative, I have defined for you why both of us, as conservatives, must oppose the Death Penalty as it is currently implemented in the US.
Please attack any or all of those five points. And by “attack”, I mean with facts, philosophy or conservative ideology, not references to “burbots” (wth?), chanting about “fear”, or egg/omelet references that I suspect you might start to see are actually anti-conservative to the core.
Fair enough? 🙂
It’s Short Man’s Disease, isn’t it Krod?
Krod,
Just to follow up – you say “I’m not afraid”. I bet Mr. Willingham wasn’t afraid, the day before the fire, either. But if he turns out to be innocent, it’d seem you’re both wrong.
And to facilitate your answer, I’ll recap my five points for you:
Do you believe mankind can be perfected?
Do you believe killing the innocent is not only evil, but the greatest evil man can accomplish?
Do you believe protecting the innocent is not only good, but one of society’s most important goals?
If mankind can not be perfected, and that imperfection leads to the death of innocents – one of the greatest evils there is – does mankind not have the obligation to seek a more foolproof alternative that delivers the same results in punishing the guilty?
It’s not a simple question, but it is a clear one.
“protecting the innocent is one of society’s supreme goods, then…”
I don’t think everyone agree with you on that. If they did we would not have debates on the subject of euthanasia or abortion. *shrug*
OK, I chose to stay out of this today out of fear of scathing Foot ripostes, but I must ask this. Richard Ramirez (aka the Night Stalker) is sitting on California’s death row. For waaay too long, IMO. Would you support commuting his sentence?
If they did we would not have debates on the subject of euthanasia or abortion
Right. Not everyone agrees. But conservatives do.
Would you support commuting his sentence?
Would you trade life in supermax for Ramirez to save an innocent person?
Are you conflating “good” (or “moral”) and “conservative” here?
And how evil is it to imprison an innocent man for the rest of his life? I ask just so we can compare evil apples to evil apples here. 😉
Troy,
No. I am saying that conservatism believes upholding the individual and,even more importantly, eternal values like “the value of the individual”, is something conservatives and conservatism consider “Good”.
Not sure if it was covered in the previous thread, Mitch, but would you not support death penalty for Manson, Gein, Gacey, Dahlmer, Bundy, Berkowitz, etc – you know, the REAL guilty ones?
We covered it. I do support executing people in specific cases were we absolutely positively know. But how does a society write a standard for “double-dog certain”?
While we’re chewing on numbers here, Northwestern Law has something called the Center on Wrongful Convictions, which includes links to “Meet the Exonerated”. Just in Illinois, which does not have the highest rate of executions by a long shot, there have been 18 exonerations of innocent people who were wrongly convicted; those releases occurred between 1987 and 2004. Illinois, because of the high rate of convictions of innocent people, currently has a moratorium on executions of those convicted and given the death penalty – but they still have a ‘death row’. There have been nothing like 18 billion convictions with the death penalty, to make the 1 in a billion figure that KR pulled out of thin air.
There are other states which have had worse records than IL, as a comparison.
Would you trade life in supermax for Ramirez to save an innocent person?
Mitch Berg setting up a straw man? What is this world coming to?
I think we all agree that the death penalty has to be applied only when we are really, really, really certain. Taking it off the table limits our options, and I like options.
But how does a society write a standard for “double-dog certain”?
Confession?
Just in Illinois, which does not have the highest rate of executions by a long shot, there have been 18 exonerations of innocent people
This is a testament to Chicago politics – you know, the ones that produced Barry, – then a meaningful statistic for this aguement.
Mitch Berg setting up a straw man?
Not a strawman – a conundrum.
Confession?
Do you know how many people have been released from death row because of forced or faulty confessions?
I’ll leave whether it’s “conservative” or not to others, but I’m with Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13–and apparently on the opposite side as the Pope. (OK with me: I’m a Baptist)
Intentional murder ought to be rewarded with the death penalty. Period. Otherwise the sword in the hand of the king/government means nothing.
For that matter, the argument Mitch addresses can, with minor changes, be applied to life in prison. If a corrupt Chicago cop gets you life, you’ve still lost your life–it’s just that the process of ending it is slower. No chance to marry, work a job of your choice, ride your bike to work, etc.. The key issue is whether the “king” is doing things honestly, not what kind of penalty one has.
And pragmatically speaking, do I want to be guilty of the blood of one person wrongly executed, or for the blood of 20,000 people who, statistically speaking, would have died if we had had no death penalty? All are innocent lives.
If I have to choose–and I’m not yet persuaded that I have had to do so–I’ve got to choose the 20,000 over the one.
And yes, go after corrupt Chicago cops like anything. And community organizers.
I think you’ve made a mistake in your reasoning, Mitch. Something about uncertainty leading you to a certain conclusion, or skipping a step when you shift from the general to the particular. I will tighten the screws in the titanium plate in my head and cogitate on the matter.
Normally your`re spot on Mitch, but not with this one. “But if you can`t succsessfully attack my five point chain of logic… ” Well, that`s your five point chain of logic, maybe not ours, maybe not the founders. “Abolishing the death penalty is supremely conservative.” No, following the Constitution is. And guess what- with some restrictions, it allows capital punishment. Like someone else said, your five points of “logic” sound like AC during some of his better strawman arguments. The 244 are ALIVE- the system, though not perfect, works. Name the people who have been executed in the last 50yrs that were innocent. What, maybe one or two? There maybe more, but you keep tossing about this 244, when maybe you should concentrate on the one or two, not the almost 244. If we only had life in prison, and those 244 were found to be innocent, then what, no prison? No perfection there, either. Your “logic” taken till its end. You don`t like capital punishment- fine- take it up with the Constitution. Get your state to outlaw it, ammend the Constitution, or have the Supremes decare it un-constitutional. That`s why your “five points” don`t really matter. They`re your points, not the framers. The Constitution matters, and there are ways to change it if you can. That`s being “supremely conservative.” The framers said “cruel and unusual” (not cruel or unusual). It`s never been unusual, as its` been used thru history. For now, the Supremes and most people think it not “cruel”. The whole thing reminds me of something i read on Powerline today. Obama, on a thesis of his at Columbia, said that it was too bad the Constitution didn`t allow for economic freedom in that it said nothing about wealth redistribution. The author said something along the lines of “What, he thinks he`s smarter than Jefferson?” Maybe time to look in the mirror.
I’m sure you covered it in the other thread too, but what about an argument of death penalty as an ultimate deterrent – there would be fewer crime if it was pervasive, thus resulting in fewer innocent victims in the first place?
Why do we even have lifetime in jail in the first place? So that you just become a celebrity and have adoring fans? Think Mumia.
jimf says:”The whole thing reminds me of something i read on Powerline today. Obama, on a thesis of his at Columbia, said that it was too bad the Constitution didn`t allow for economic freedom in that it said nothing about wealth redistribution. ”
Apparently you hadn’t caught up with the announcement that the quote was not really written by Obama; it was a HOAX.
What we know factually is that new science like DNA, and reviews of death row cases by groups like the Innocence Project lead to frequent exonerations of people wrongly convicted of crimes resulting in the death penalty. It is not unique to Chicago or Illinois, nor are their statistics among the worst; there are places with more egregious numbers of wongly convicted innoent people. More continue to be exposed as wrongful convictions pretty much on an ongoing basis.
So while there clearly are instances where there is no doubt, and where every available proof of science supports the conviction, we just don’t KNOW how many more people are wrongly convicted and condemned to death. I agree with Mitch however that the numbers strongly suggest it is a penalty we should use with the greatest care, and if we cannot convict with a better rate of actual guilt, then maybe we shouldn’t be using the death penalty, or at least, use it much more rarely.
Just plain angry – can you prove the death penalty is an effective deterrent?
Everything I’ve read indicates it is NOT an effective deterrent, regardless of what the law abiding might expect it to be. Seems those who are not law abiding look at things differently.
“siftee is a chicken as well.”
blink…blink….
Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!
Trust me here; *that* is not a road you’re equipped to go down my friend!
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
But to help solidify Mitch’s point, I refer back to the Jeanine Nicarico story that I referenced in the other post last night.
In 1983, 10 year old Jeanine Nicarico was kidnapped out of her Naperville IL home. Her body was found a few weeks later in the Naperville Forest Preserve. A little over a year later, the State’s Attorney, facing a tough election, brought three suspects to trial in Jeanine’s slaying. Two of the three were convicted and sentenced to death and if it were not for endless appeals and the advent of DNA testing, two innocent men would have been put to death for Brian Dugan’s crime…..
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Jeanine.Nicarico.2.323109.html
LL
jimf wrote:
The whole thing reminds me of something i read on Powerline today. Obama, on a thesis of his at Columbia, said that it was too bad the Constitution didn`t allow for economic freedom in that it said nothing about wealth redistribution. The author said something along the lines of “What, he thinks he`s smarter than Jefferson?”
Apparently they hadn’t gotten the news that wasn’t Obama’s thesis, that was a hoax. Apparently it came from an original blog post, with the label “satire” by author Brian Lancaster at a blog called Jumping in Pools. From there it seems to have been posted on Fox Nation’s front page, byMichael Ledeen, and — still without any original checking — it was picked up by Rush Limbaugh. Ledeen came across it originally through twitter. Apparently both Limbaugh and Ledeen have acknowledged that this is not factual, although, Limbaugh doesn’t seem to care if it is a “pseudo fact”. He finds it apocryphal, in other words, if it isn’t true, he thinks it should be.
Unfortunately, the hoax information hasn’t traveled as far as the original misstatement, apparently because people do tend to believe what they want to believe, instead of checking info.
justplainangry Says:
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
“Just in Illinois, which does not have the highest rate of executions by a long shot, there have been 18 exonerations of innocent people ”
This is a testament to Chicago politics – you know, the ones that produced Barry, – then a meaningful statistic for this aguement.
And what is your explanation for the other states which have worse ratios of innocent people wrongfully convicted on death row? or discovered to have been innocent after they were executed?
for those who DO want to check, here is the link to Jumping in Pools:
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-college-thesis-constitution-is.html#
be sure to note the SATIRE label
Just plain angry – can you prove the death penalty is an effective deterrent?
Here you go, DogNabbit. You can pick your own biased source to refute:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Apparently you hadn’t caught up with the announcement that the quote was not really written by Obama; it was a HOAX.
Oh my! Duplicate posts bursting with verbiage. Can you point to a SINGLE word you wrote when Rush’s bogus quote was plastered on all MSM outlets?
And what is your explanation for the other states which have worse ratios of innocent people wrongfully convicted on death row? or discovered to have been innocent after they were executed?
Politics.
Here you go, DogNabbit. You can pick your own biased source to refute:
Ahem. Have to dig much deeper into numbers to see that 30,000ft comparison is not as clear cut as it may seem. For example: Michigan has twice the population then Minnesota and almost 6 times the murder rate – both states do not have death penalty. Texas, on the other hands, has death penalty has almost 2.5 times the people and lower murder rate then Michigan.
I concede that death penalty cannot be statistically unequivocally proven to be a deterrent.