The Pro-Life Death Penalty. There is much debate on the subject. Dead Man Walking (movie and book), and for a good summary of the "anti" position, see the web page file of Steve Kangas at http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/ But Steve, like every other "anti" that I have read fails to deal with the strongest "pro" arguments. And there are now two NEW considerations, that in my opinion, tip the balance towards the "Pro-Life Death Penalty". CLOSURE First, the old argument: closure for the families of the victims. As long a the killer of their children/spouse/"significant other" lives, most people can't get on with their lives. I recall reading about the Richard Spect case (the guy who killed a bunch of nurses several decades ago). Every five or ten years, he came up for a parole hearing. The families of the victims, fearing that everyone ELSE may have forgotten about the case and that he might be released to kill again, felt it their duty to attend the parole hearing and remind the board of his crime. They were subjected to a sort of mental torture each time. But they were able to keep him behind bars until he died, thus perhaps saving YOUR life. The opponents of capital punishment like to see themselves as "kinder and gentler", but that depends on whether you look at it from the perspective of the criminal or the family/friends of the victims. "Dead Man Walking" (book more so than movie) makes it clear that Sister Helen Prejean has much more love for the killer, than for the parents of his victims. Now in most states, the there is little or nothing done for the relatives/friends of the victim, even if the state does have capital punishment. But in some states, Florida, for example, there IS some consideration. There the relatives are invited to watch the execution. When will some state let them "throw the switch"? Can compassion reach that far? BETTER SCIENCE The main "anti" argument has been "what if the wrong guy is convicted?" And no one wants that. We all (should) know that "eye-witness" identification of strangers is not very reliable. Not good enough to be certain. But now with finger prints, and much better, with DNA matching, evidence is MUCH more reliable than it ever was in the past. The chances of convicting the innocent are lower now than ever because of modern science. DOES IT DETER? The "anti" side likes to claim there is no deterrent effect, and they cite the broad lack of correlation: states with a death penalty are likely to have a HIGHER murder rate, leading the "antis" to say that maybe it CAUSES murders. But it is more likely the reverse. When a state has an increase in murder (or as likely, some particularly horrendous murders) they respond by passing a death penalty. Murder CAUSES the death penalty. But then clearly there is not a STRONG deterrent effect, or the murder rate would then drop enough to measure. But to determine if there is ANY deterrent effect, many corrections need be applied; for age and demographics to decide how many murders should be EXPECTED. Studies like this can be manipulated to "prove" either side. National Review published one several years ago to 'prove" that each execution saves about 200 potential victims by deterring their would-be killer. WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE? Often asked by the "antis". And now that can be debated. But each execution COULD, if done right, be the means to save at least 4 people. How? About 3000-4000 people die each year in the US while waiting for organ transplants. No one seems to care much about THEM. I mean they die for LACK of organs, while we burn and bury THOUSANDS of perfectly usable hearts, livers, and kidneys every year. Part of the problem is timing: people killed in accidents often have their perfectly good organs spoil before a suitable transplant recipient can be lined up. But with an execution planned months ahead, the tissue matched recipients can be ready and waiting. A single small caliber bullet to the head will leave the organs to save 4 people perfectly unharmed. Cruel, you say? For those whose lives are saved? Or for the families of the victim? Just where is YOUR sympathy? FINALLY I should be honest about my bias. I opposed capital punishment for most of my life. For all the usual reasons. But then there was Ted Bundy. It was not just that he like to kill young women (hey, no one is perfect!). And while everyone should be able to kill a FEW people, he overdid it. But then when he bragged about how he got them: by hobbling around on crutches. He didn't kill just ANY young women, he targeted the ones who tried to help a cripple. It was then that I realized that I had this all wrong. Call it "non-verbal communication". Words just could not express my response to that. But 20,000 volts, yes that could. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834 Desmond Coughlan wrote: ... > How do the relatives of victims manage to get on with their lives in > Europe, Canada, Australia... and all the other abolitonist countries? Hi, Good question. Do we have any readers of this who are the surviving relatives of a murder victum (parents, sibling), where the murderer is now living? If so, lets hear your comments on this. Papa Budge wrote: My mother's first cousin shot his wife in their bed while their children slept in the next room. He was convicted of first-degree murder and executed at San Quentin. My mother spent a year of her life fighting to have his sentence commuted to life imprisonment. She spent the rest of her life fighting capital punishment.. Hi, I can certainly understand her reaction. I also think that, as a part of the "victum's rights" movement, the desire of the relatives of the victum should be given more consideration by the legal system. Whatever those are. The question that is revelant to this thread: Given that the cousin was executed, would your mother have found some comfort in having his organs used to save the lifes of 5-50 other people? I have read of many cases where parents grieving the loss of a son or daughter in an accident have found some comfort in knowing that other lives were saved by organ donation. Again, too little is being done for the thousands of people who die every year for lack of the body parts that are buried every year. And if you saw the TV show 60 Minutes last week, the current efforts seem to be to make it even harder to get organs to transplant. Cardiac dead used to be dead enough (it used to be as dead as you can get). Now there is a movement to insure that everyone is both brain dead and cardiac dead before organs can be taken. When the brain dies from lack of oxygen, the organs are being destroyed also. This would reduce the supply even more. Restrictions like this make getting an organ transplant in Japan almost impossible. Note that the UW Medical Center was one of those accused of taking organs while they were still usable. -- Robert Miller wrote: > The process of execution by any means legal in the US other than hanging > (WA) and shooting (UT) renders the victims body unfit for organ donation, > even before you figure in the high incidince of alchohol and/or drug > abuse among incarcerated populations that also ruins organs. Hi, Yes, currently the organs are destroyed even when they are perfectly good and people are literly dying for them. That is the situation I would like to change. Of course only suitable organs could be used. But most convicted killers are relatively young (especially when CONVICTED!), and do have suitable organs. But matching tissue types ahead, each execution COULD save 5-50 lives. Thus the title of my post. Some people have replied with harsh comments about this idea. I assume that NONE of THEM (or their children) are waiting for an organ or bone marrow. -- Desmond Coughlan wrote: > This false "concern" for the relatives of victims is just that: false. > > It fools no one, and I for one am more than a little pissed off at the > hypocrites on this newsgroup who pretend that their support for the > death penalty has anything at all to do with the victims. .... > attack the causes of crime. You would use it to better your education > system. You would use it to improve policing. You would use it for > social schemes to cut inner-city crime.--DC Actually the US does spend quite a lot of money on education now. As much or more per student as UK, I bet. Some people think that criminals are the cause of crime. WHAT PURPOSE DOES IT SERVE? Often asked by the "antis". And now that can be debated. But each execution COULD, if done right, be the means to save 4 people.--jeb > Wait a minute. A couple of lines ago, it was 200 people saved by each > execution. Now it's only four? > > So that's arithmetic as well as elementary criminology that you flunked.--DC. The 200 are not people who can be identified, but mathmetical projections. They may not exist at all (like most such "statistical people"). But the 4 are the identifiable people that could be saved by the transplanted organs. I have since discovered that I was wrong about the 4. The actual number that can be saved from complete use of a healthy human body, with advanced planning, is more like 50. I forgot about bone marrow. Remember the recent death of Michelle Carew, teenage daughter of the baseball player? She didn't have a bone marrow doner. I will try to reply to the intelligent comments made to this post at a later date, and will add the original post and reply comments to my web page. I guess to the "Politically Incorrect Zone". PS: Wisconsin does not have capital punishment. It is mostly an individual state thing. -- jim blair wrote: But I would like to see more effort towards extending the lives of those who could benefit from organ transplants. Papa Budge wrote: > > Yes, but your idea might have more charm were you not taking those organs > by force. > > --papa budge. Hi, Yes, but from people who will have no need for them, to people who will die without them. Think of this as a sort of "tax". The obvious fact is that our current system is not adequate: thousands die every year who could live, while the organs that could save them are destroyed. Does this make any sense to you? The question is, are we going to DO anything about this? My proposal is clearly not the complete answer, but I did hope to call attention to the problem, and start some discussion of solutions. Some people seem to be offended at even discussing ways to save these lives. They may change their minds if THEY or any of their loved ones ever are dying for lack of bone marrow or an organ. But by theb it could be too late. I think lack of empathy is at the core of the shortage. -- jim blair wrote: But I would like to see more effort towards extending the lives of those who could benefit from organ transplants. > > Papa Budge wrote: > > > > Yes, but your idea might have more charm were you not taking those organs > > > by force. > > > Hi, > > > Yes, but from people who will have no need for them, to people who will > > die without them. Think of this as a sort of "tax".--jeb > Glad you feel that way: the day I discover my sister is dying from a > diseased organ the like of which remains healthy in your body, write your > last will and testament. Think of me as a sort of "tax collector." > > --papa budge. Hi, I am still trying to fathom the proccess that seems to correspond to what would be called "thinking" in others. You oppose taking the organs of convicted killers when they are executed, but not to taking organs from non-murders if they suggest ways to save the lives of some of those now dying for lack of transplantable organs. So if your sister did need a transplant, (and if I was a tissue match), I should murder some people in front of witnesses: as a convicted killer, you would oppose the using of MY organs. Or am I not understanding what you say? Perhaps the "tax" analogy was a bad one. People who can afford to are expected to pay taxes in return for what society provides them. Better, the use of the executed's organs is restitution to society: the killer cannot return the life/lives taken. But ammends can be made by saving the lives of OTHERS. Or are you opposed to the concept of criminals repaying their victims and society for the harm they do? -- ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___( O O )___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834