 |
|||||
|
Shadow Government #34
Murder one
We can see in Texas what happens when a state government confuses itself with Murder, Inc. And we can see in Illinois what happens when a state that has been killing takes a good hard look at the people it plans to kill.
The killings stop.
So where would I feel safer, Texas or Illinois? You've got it.
Arguments against capital punishment: you probably will not have heard them all before, the debate has become that one-sided, so please be patient with me.
First, the wrong people are always killed. No human process, even the time-tested and crucial methods of our national elections, is without flaw. No great effort is ever expended in deciding exactly who should be killed and who merely imprisoned forever. Mistakes happen. Quite a few mistakes.
Even in the fairest circumstances, the decision on whether or not to execute must depend on the exact nature of the crime, which is not easy to define, and on the criminal's intentions, which exist nowhere except inside his head. No outsider will ever know what the criminal thought as he killed, or what he thinks now.
Second, picking those to be condemned is a crap shoot and the dice are loaded. Male, non-white, poor, stupid, mentally ill go to the little green cell. Rich, white, smart, good-looking, sane pass and be recognized.
Third, the threat of execution gives prosecutors too much power. "You say you're innocent. Fine. Stick with that story if you like. But if you do, and the jury doesn't like you, we will kill you. Or you can make a deal."
Prosecutors care a lot more about batting averages than about justice. Do you really want them to have that much power anytime they want to use it? Would you like them to have that much power if the accused were you?
Fourth, it isn't someone else doing the killing. When a criminal is executed when a living, breathing human being is rendered dead by whatever awful method is used that action takes place in your name and my name and in the name of all of us. We all kill him.
Fifth, wherever the death penalty exists, it will be used for political ends that have nothing to do with crime. Ask Joe Hill. Ask Jesus Christ. Ask Leonard Pelletier -- oh, that's right, you CAN ask him. When he was railroaded, the U.S. didn't have a death penalty to finish him. Still.
Or ask six million Jews, murdered by a state under color of law and without the slightest taint of humanity. Or all the other martyred peoples of a genocidal century.
If the state can kill with its citizens' consent, who will ever stop it from killing?
Have I forgotten the argument that executions deter crime? No. Nor have I factored in the demoralization done by the rituals of public murder and by the enactment of revenge as public policy.
The state must be allowed to kill in self-defense. Isn't that killing enough? It is for me.
John Jackson may be reached at TomShadwell@cs.com. ER