Crips founder finds purpose on Death Row!
This is a great story, that you can listen to:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4608950
Turns out the dude that started the Crips (they wore blue) is on death row for a crime he claims he is innocent. I konw nothing about the evidence of that, it was just a good story to listen to. The interesting thing is, once he went to jail he began reading and praying. Now he is repentant for his ways and he frequently writes and speaks out against gangs and violence to young kids in the inner-cities.
I am against the death penalty, and I present my logic to you here:
1. Humans are fallible.
2. Death penalties are brought by human juries that create a verdict based on evidence presented by other humans.
3. Therefore, the verdicts are fallible.
4. Based on 3 - we cannot morally allow ourselves to sentence others to death.
So, I am against Tookie being on death row, out of principle. But listen to what he is doing nowadays, for the good of society and ask yourself if we should execute this man?
posted by DOBBER at 12:06 AM
6 Comments:
dmo,
let me rephrase...we can't morally justify allowing the government to execute people. if that girl were your daughter, i believe you would be completely morally justified in killing that man. (but you would have to get away with it...or else a court may find you guilty of murder)
11:28 AM
also, how do you feel about tookie?
11:29 AM
Dobber,
How is that follow up consistant? A father of a victim is perfectly justified in murdering the victim’s killer, but the state is not? Both the father and the state are fallible. So how can the father be justified by not the state?
On a more basic level, I think that you misunderstand the role of the death penalty within the operation of the state's obligation to its citizens. This obligation is to maintain law and order. Murder and other crimes are an issue for the state because one citizen tramples on the rights of another. If this were to occur with no penalty society would quickly break down and we would find ourselves in a very Hobbesian existence.
The next question has to what is the penalty that a person must pay for taking another persons rights? The fundamental tradeoff that the state must make here is to ensure that the punishment for the criminal is consistant with the demands of justice from the citizens. In this calculation both the crime itself and the resources of the state must play a part.
Think about the early days of colonial America, which the settlers were lucky just to survive. In those times the typical punishment for murder was either death or banishment. The rational was that an antisocial individual posed a grave danger to the very existence of the rest of the group. This situation clearly demonstrates the morality of capital punishment.
Today, we often take law and order for granted because the US has known uninterrupted (at least in the north) law and order for two centuries. But the same fundamental calculation applies we must ensure that punishment meted out is consistant with maintaining order in our state. Capital punishment meets that test.
12:59 PM
bangert,
the follow-up is consistant. i trust me, you, and the American person in general. I am naturally suspect of government power and abuse of systems. that's why i believe that if a man raped my daughter, and i had the opportunity, i would attempt to kill him. but, the fact is, if we give the government the right to kill people as a punishment, errors will be made, and innocent people will die.
i completely understand the "role of the death penalty within the operation of the state's obligation to its citizens. "
i did not say that murder and crimes are not issues for the state, of course they are!
you said:
"The rational was that an antisocial individual posed a grave danger to the very existence of the rest of the group. This situation clearly demonstrates the morality of capital punishment."
it does not clearly demonstrate the morality of capital punishment. life in prison is a pretty bad life, and if we remove the person from society, then havent filled the obligation to protect citizens?
I ask any supporter of the death penalty this simple question:
Is it worth it to have the death penalty knowing that we will execute innocent people from time to time?
11:20 PM
dmo,
point taken regarding advancements in technology (ie DNA evidence).
however, i am not yet convinced our system is full-proof, and will be an opponent of the death penalty until that can be provided for me.
11:22 PM
if those stats are true, its a no brainer!
travis, can you please provide a reference?
thanks a bunch
3:20 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home