Death penalty

An astounding 1135 Americans have been killed mercilessly in the last thirty-one years by the United States judicial system (death penalty info 1). Amazingly, this is a perfectly legal practice in the same country that is often said to be at the forefront of the free world. Many continue to argue for the practice of capital punishment, or the death penalty for the murderers and rapists of our country, in order to deter these types of people from commiting these awful acts. They also argue that we need to clear out our jails, as it doesn’t make sense to use tax dollars to keep these heinous people alive in our prison cells. However, there is plenty of data to argue just the opposite, that the death penalty is not successful in deterring crime, and that it is actually more expensive to kill these people than to keep them in our jails.
First, the proponents of capital punishment argue that the only way to teach some of these people not to murder and commit other awful crimes is to threaten them with death upon conviction. However, it has been seen that this is not effectively deterring murder. In fact, in most cases, the murder rate has risen with the use of the death penalty. In states that do not practice capital punishment, the murder rates have been consistently between 27 and 46 percent lower than in those states that practice it since 1995 (death penalty info deterrence). Most recently, in 2007, the murder rate was 5.83 in states that use the the death penalty, versus only 4.10 in states that don’t (deterrence). That is a 42 percent difference (deterrence). In addition, according to a survey, of past and present presidents of the nations top criminological societies, 84 percent reject the notion that capital punishment acts as a deterrence to murder (death penalty info 3).
Secondly, a common argument for the implementation of the death penalty is that we need to clear out our jail cells, that we shouldn’t be spending space and money keeping these evil people alive in our prisons. However, it has been proven time and time again that it is more expensive to kill these people than to keep them alive. For example, in California, the death penalty system costs taxpayers 114 million a year more than what it would cost to keep convicts locked up for life (death penalty info 4). Californians have coughed up over 250 million for each execution (4). In Kansas, capital cases are seventy percent more expensive than non-capital cases, including incarceration costs(4). In Florida, it costs 51 million a year above what it would cost for first degree murderers to spend life in prison without parole (4). That’s 24 million for each execution (4). Imagine what could be done with all that money. A great majority of the reason costs are so much more for death penalty cases are because of the extensive trials that they must go through. Ever case is brought to appeals, and drags on forever, as people’s lives are literally at stake in these trials. Often times those on death row are using taxpayers dollars for their lawyers and court costs also because they have the right to them, but usually don’t have the money to pay for them. These costs add up quickly.
Possibly the biggest argument for the death penalty, the one thing that is keeping it legal in some states in the face of all this contradictory data is that is just. People say eye for an eye, that is the only just thing to do. But I disagree. First of all, by killing those that have killed, we are stooping to their level, and setting an example of vengeance. Many of those convicted of murder kill for revenge. They feel that someone did something bad enough that warrants their life be taken. While we might not agree that it is worth their life, it seems to be for these murderers, in the name of justice. By taking the lives of the murderers for committing crimes we believe to be horrible enough to die for, we are doing the exact same thing as the murderers. It is all about vengeance, and there is no room for that in a mature and responsible society. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.”


Bibliography

"Fact Sheet." Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008. Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008 .

"Deterrance." Death Penalty Information Center. 2008. Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Dec 2008 .

Torture and Responsibility

Torture and Responsibility

The use of torture abroad by the United States to gather information has reached extremes in recent years. As Molly explains lower in her blog, it is fueling the anti-American sentiment all over the world, and for good reason. What happened in 2004 in Iraq is unacceptable on many levels. According to CBS news, the abuse that took place at Abu Ghraib prison included physical abuse, threatening with dogs, forced masturbation and sexual humiliation in front of a camera (Abuse at Abu Ghraib). This was similar to, if not worse than the terrible things that were taking place at the prison when Saddam Hussein was in power. Former CIA Bureau Chief Bob Baer recalled, "If there's ever a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it's because of Abu Ghraib...It was an awful place." Yet after the liberation, American forces kept up the horrific atmosphere in the Middle Eastern version of Hell.


So we can all agree that this is an unacceptable way for anyone to act, especially soldiers representing our country. But who gets the blame? Where does responsibility fall? There's little doubt that those directly responsible, those with the blood literally on their hands, should have consequences taken out on them. Even if they were just following orders, it is still unacceptable to commit crimes such as these regardless of circumstance. But there is doubt on how high up the blame can go. Can the warden, Captain Donald J. Reese be blamed, even if he took no part or maybe didn't even know what was going on? Can some guilt drop to First Lt. Lewis C. Raeder, accused of not training troops thoroughly on the Geneva Convention prohibiting mistreatment of POWs? Can the Brigade General Janis Karpinski be held responsible; who was in command of the Army Reserve unit was in charge of the prison at the time of the abuse? Can we trace it all the way back to Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the top Army General at the time, or even Donald H. Rumsfeld, the U.S. secretary of Defense? Staff Sergeant Frederick said about the investigation, "I hope the investigation is including not only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the people that might have encouraged the crimes as well. Because they certainly share some of the responsibility as well." (Abuse of Iraqi POWs)


There is evidence that suggests the guilt of those higher up in the system, such as the comments made by some of the soldiers on the scene. Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick said that upon questioning some of the procedures, he received the response, "This is how military Intelligence (MI) wants it done." (Abu Ghraib) Frederick also commented, "We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations. And it just wasn't happening." (Abu Ghraib) So clearly the guilt should be traced higher, and some argue all the way to the top. That argument is related to the term representation. These people are representing America by their actions, and the privates and specialists are representing their elder statesmen in the Army. So if they do something reprehensible, the leaders must accept responsibility for the actions of those representing. That's not to say Rumsfeld should be thrown in jail, but he should accept that bad things took place under his watch and actions need to be taken to prevent this from happening again.


All of this brings to mind a song by a peaceful surf-rocker Jack Johnson called Cookie Jar. The song goes through a progression of denial, starting with a young gun toting boy, and continues through his parents, the media man, the musical lyricist, and eventually down to us, the people. Johnson claims that everyone is partially responsible for the child's action, by allowing it to happen. The song is about the evils of television, but his points about responsibility are applicable here as well.

l'd turn on the TV, but it’s so embarrassing
to see all the other people, i don't know what they mean
it was magic at first, when they spoke without sound
but now this world is gonna hurt, you better turn that thing down
turn it around

it wasn't me, says the boy with the gun
sure i pulled the trigger, but it needed to be done
because life's been killing me ever since it begun
you cant blame me because i'm too young

you cant blame me, sure the killer was my son
but i didnt teach him to pull the trigger of the gun
its the killing on his tv screen
you cant blame me, its those images he seen

you cant blame me, says the media man
i wasnt the one who came up with the plan
i just point my camera at what the people want to see
its a two way mirror and you cant blame me

you cant blame me, says the singer of the song
or the maker of the movie which he based his life on
its only entertainment, as anyone can see
its smoke machines and makeup, you cant fool me

it was you, it was me, it was every man
we've all got the blood on our hands
we only receive what we demand
and if we want hell then hells what well have


So, does this mean we can be held responsible for what happened in Abu Ghraib? Not necessarily. But it stands to argue that maybe we should accept that as Americans we cannot allow our soldiers, those that represent us overseas, to commit such acts, and now that they have, accept that we, as Americans have made a regrettable mistake and make steps to ensure that it never happens again.


Bibliography


"Abuse Of Iraqi POWs By GIs Probed." 60 Minutes II 28 Apr 2008 1-3. 25 Nov 2008 .


"Abuse at Abu Ghraib-Interactive link." 60 Minutes II 28 Apr 2008 25 Nov 2008 .


Johnson, Jack. "Cookie Jar." On and On. 2003.

non-violence

From Martin Luther King Jr. to Gandhi, social activists and world renown leaders have been practicing non-violence as a means of protest or in order to make a public statement for years. Non-violence is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary on one hand as simply the lack of violence. Also, it goes on to define it more elaborately as "the doctrine, policy, or practice of rejecting violence in favor of peaceful tactics as a means of gaining political objectives." Some may say non-violence corresponds directly to the definition of negative peace, or simply the lack of war, but there is much more behind non-violence than just that lack of violence, as I will later explain. The point is, though, that non-violence can be an effective way of dealing and succeeding in getting a point across in possibly violent situations.

Dr. Martin Luther King, in "The Meaning of Non-violence", describes the philosophy behind his non-violent tactics and why it is more than just the absence of violence. He describes it as a third method of dealing with oppression, after acquiescence which is a cowardly way out, and violent hatred, which would just escalate, and is morally inadequate.(mkgandhi) He said that he "believe(s) that nonviolence is the method that can achieve the ideals and goals and principles of the new age." (mkgandhi) But what exactly is non-violence? King goes on to make several points about the "undergirding philosophy" of it. (mkgandhi) First, the emans used to reach an end must be as pure as the ends desire to be reached. (mkgandhi) Immoral means cannot bring about a moral end, but moral means will most definetely bring about a moral end. (mkgandhi) Means and ends are inseparable in this way.
Secondly, at the heart of non-violence is the belief that injury should never be inflicted upon the opponent, known in Indian philosophy as ahimsa. Ahimsa, along with many of these beliefs, but especially ahimsa, is in direct agreement with the ideas and beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi as well. Now there are two different forms of practicing ahimsa, on =e being the obvious physical external violence that is avoided. But it also entails always moving closer to not hating your enemy. Eventually, the hope is, you will love your enemy not in the affectionate friend type of way, but you love your enemy because God loves you. That same kind of unconditional love that requires nothing in return is the key to effective non-violence. This is why Gandhi claims that one must have a strong faith in God to have a faith in practicing non-violence. (mkgandhi)
There have been numerous examples of effective non-violence being practicced as a means to get a point across or introducing ideas. From the trials and travels of Gandhi to the work of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr.; from India to the U.S. to the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic and all over the world in less documented cases, non-violence has proved its worth as an effective means of stopping oppression and violence. The question is, can we translate that effectiveness to a means of stopping or at least slowing larger scale problems such as the wars that plague the world's countries today. It is yet to be seen, but it is certainly a possibility worth further exploration.

bibliography

"nonviolence." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 06 Nov. 2008. .


King, Martin Luther. "Peace, Non-violence, and Conflict Resolution." mkgandhi. 6 Nov 2008 .

Everyone at some point in their lives has committed at least one act that can be considered violent or another. Whether it was a physical fight with a friend, or former friend, or just pent up frustration taken out on a younger sibling, or even just anger expressed literally, through your door. Regardless, it was probably a somewhat minor act of aggression, as a greater majority of people don't subscribe to a overly violent lifestyle, especially when discussed to the level of killing other humans. In fact, most that would consider themselves "peaceful" or "non-violent" or even just "normal" do not consider themselves capable of mass violence or even of killing another human. However, throughout history, there have been several instances of not only killing but mass killing and even genocidal acts committed by these self-appointed "normal" people. No matter how hard it is to admit, everyone, even the most passive and peaceful of us are capable of these atrocities under the right circumstances. These circumstances include the common overwhelming hate of a people, the spread of very influential propaganda promoting mass violence, and others. It is the duty of this blog to prove the involvement of "normal" people in mass violence.
The most obvious historical example of the non-violent becoming mass killers lies in the most deadly war in recent times, the Nazi execution of six million Jews during World War II. The numbers of normal, hard working Germans that were recruited into the anti-semite movement are staggering. Whether it was a pre-war anti-semitism that was set in the minds of these Germans or just the genius propaganda that was issued by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party, still the fact remains that these were regular, working class, non-violent citizens of Germany, that in the face of war, combined to ruthlessly take the lives of millions of Jews. There were lawyers, doctors, carpenters, businessmen and any other profession in Germany that before the war simply went about their business peacefully, but under the rule of Hitler turned into raving Jew killers.
There is much debate as to why these seemingly normal people could have the capacity to be so ruthless. Some say it is due solely to the great propaganda of the Nazi party, rallying the country around the cause of exterminating the Jewish people of Europe. Others claim it to be a deep-seated hatred of these somewhat more successful outsiders that led to people chasing them out. Whatever the reason, there is no doubt that just as many of the perpetrators that participated in the genocide of WWII could be considered evil or somewhat insane, there are just as many normal, ordinary German perpetrators.
This can be seen in other cases of mass killing also. In Rwanda, many recruited to the task of destroying the Tutsi "cockroaches" were simple, Hutu Rwandans. Somehow they also got caught up in the killing. The historical evidence is undoubtedly present. The greater question that rests in this issue is why they did it. Why so many ordinary people, just like you and me, subscribed to the unjust murdering of hundreds, thousands, millions. And even scarier; do we have the same potential. Faced with the same situation would the rest of us commit the same despicable crimes. Maybe it is yet to be seen.