Consequence

I want to begin with the preface that the post you are about to read concerns volatile topics in our world. I have taken great care in approaching these issues and expressing myself objectively where possible. While this certainly won't prevent any reader from feeling strongly about the material I humbly beseech you to read and evaluate my thoughts--and your own--carefully.

The aim of this blog is to discuss matters in ways that are not commonly discussed; the goal is to stimulate thought in both the writer and the visitor. As always, comments--even anonymous--are open and encouraged. You may have concluded by now that in these discussions there are few rules outside of responsible conduct.

---

Penn (and Teller) made a great, thoughtful statement on their television show several years ago¹. The topic was PETA--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--and the point was made regarding how strange it is to include the word 'ethical' in your organization's name.

"Ethical means moral or proper which differs for every person, it's something to discuss. It's not an absolute, it just sounds nice. It's like pro-choice and pro-life, I mean come on! Everyone is pro choice and pro life. It's for or against abortion that your group is about."

-Penn Jillette

If I tell you [my socio-political views] I still haven't told you anything about me. I support the concepts of death as consequence and zygote termination but I do not support all their contemporary manifestations. It's very difficult but necessary when considering these ideas to separate what we know them as in practice and what the bare abstractions are. An in-depth discussion of the topics is certainly scandalous for just about any audience. Suffice it to say I prefer sound logic over conflicting reason.

Conservatives and liberals--in a general sense--both have it "wrong" in this regard; they are inverses of the other. One argues you can end a life that is not manifest, the other states you can end a life that has bore bad fruit. Both attitudes end human life and both are adopted by people across the entire social spectrum. You can't logically support the death penalty and stand against abortion, or vice versa. The point is, if someone tells you they are a democrat or a republican you still don't know anything about them. You'll need to have a conversation.

The thing about the "death penalty" is that some of its critics view the application as a mode of cruelty*. Other people--especially those personally affected by the condemned--take satisfaction in the decision as vengeance in response to a perpetrator's actions. There are more ways to look at it.

The consequence of death is usually applied as a result of being convicted of murder^!. Given that we all have the same opportunity to make decisions in our lives, this leaves no measure to excuse such an act. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Consequentialism is a reality and we are judged on the results of what we do. People don't refrain from speeding because it puts them and others in danger, they do so because they can't get another ticket. Their insurance would go up.

The threat of capital punishment is there to discourage people. It establishes consequences for killing someone. Every living being possesses the natural impulse to protect itself, this is what gives these punishments power and value. You want to "get away" with killing someone because you don't want to imperil your own life. Some states that do not exercise capital punishment offer a permanent prison sentence. Either way it is the loss of control over one's life that a person fears losing.

Many times suspects on trial for murder plead guilty to achieve a "life" sentence in place of more immediate death. People tend to be aware of potential consequences before they act, even if in a passive manner, and usually prefer to stay alive even if that means a loss of liberty. We all fear death because we do not know it and I hope to never see it robbed of that mystery.

An unfortunate reality is the disconnect between the death penalty and life sentences. Not all life sentences are terminal. Parole is often granted. I think this is part of the reason people try for this fate; they know if they wait long enough the chances become greater and greater that their liberty will be returned. If there were consistency in maintaining the consequences there would be no need for capital punishment. People are relieved of these sentences for two reasons: rehabilitation and money.

Rehabilitation is offered to public opinion as a replacement for continued imprisonment. In fact,

death=life in prison=rehabilitation

in that they all offer a remedy to the problem. All are equal in that they pledge to have stopped the trespass from happening again. The public is concerned with repeat offenses. You go to prison because you killed someone, we kill you because we think the danger is great that you will do it again, or you get out because you promise you won't. I think a certain measure of this dynamic is predicated on religious teachings of forgiveness. The rest:

What is the answer to 99 out of 100 questions?
Money.

By now many have heard that we are seeing a reduction in the number of states and cases applying capital punishment. For all the emotion and discussion that has gone into the debate, it has come down to the simple fact that it costs more to kill someone than it does to keep them alive in prison until natural causes claim them. Some states can't even afford to house violent offenders for their full sentence. We are approaching the point where even our lackluster remedies no longer achieve a proper purpose.

I am saddened to realize that such legislation does achieve an implied purpose. It satisfies public concern. People feel safer "knowing" that if they are killed by a man, the state will kill him back. Other people focusing on different aspects of this topic have illustrated that a death penalty provision does not decrease the instance of murder. We have a general problem with no general solution. What is the difference between killing someone and killing a person who has committed murder? I have worked on this post for ten days and no matter how I approach things I keep returning to the same aggravating issue: [The Sprawl]

* I want to acknowledge that there are several attitudes of criticism against the death penalty. One of the most prominent and rational in my opinion is the regard that, in practice, it is illegitimate use of force. There are factual accounts of people who have suffered capital punishment only to have evidence exonerate them after the fact. This is horribly tragic and an indelible mar on the face of "justice" as most know it. It is for this reason that I do not support the "death penalty." However, many of those who do protest its continued application often misspeak and adopt incendiary platforms by saying "the death penalty is racist" when it is in fact people who are racist. They are foolish and would do better to address the real problem instead of its vestige.

! murder -n 1: Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0exLa6saV9o ← 1:54 into this video