Whatever Happened to “Two-fer Tuesday”?

by

No double executions tonight.  Damn.  In the words of the future governor of Texas, "I am not anti-death penalty, but I’m damn sure anti-the-wrong-guy-getting-executed".  We got the right guys.  Let’s get it over with.  For those who feel so much compassion for Mr. Reid and Mr. Sedley, why don’t you offer to house them at your place?  Instead of taking them out of the gene pool, you can fix up the spare room and put your closely held convictions where your mouth is.

 Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty… mine’s putting in an express lane.  Ron White

 

Advertisements

20 Responses to “Whatever Happened to “Two-fer Tuesday”?”

  1. Katherine Coble Says:

    Are you SURE these are the right guys? Positive? 100%? What about the DNA? They could be innocent.They look innocent to me.Poor baby lambs. You are a bloodthirsty savage.

  2. W Says:

    I heard Britney say he eats children.

  3. Chris Wage Says:

    Not everyone that opposes the death penalty does so out of compassion for its victims, or belief in their innocence.

  4. Sarcastro Says:

    Not every post is directed at you, Chris.

  5. Chris Wage Says:

    I believe in nothing if not that the blogosphere revolves around me.

  6. Sarcastro Says:

    Well, let’s make it all about you.Would you be in favor of the death penalty in the case of Winnie Gebremicael? If not, why not? If so, how so?

  7. Chris Wage Says:

    No, I wouldn’t.My primary objection to the death penalty is that it’s complicated and expensive. Lock him up and throw away the key, if nothing else. It’s cheaper.I admit that if the process of applying the death penalty were not so turtuously time-consuming and expensive, my position would become a little more nuanced, or at least become more circumstantial.But it would probably still lean in favor of incarceration over life-termination, simply because:a) the death penalty is usually more about revenge than justice (and in my opinion does little to deter the sort of crime it’s usually used to deter: crimes of rage or passion which are generally not subjected to a rational cost/benefit analysis)b) it ignores the possibility for rehabilitationc) even without complete or even partial rehabilitation, someone in prison can still have a meaningful (to themselves or to society) existence in some ways.And before we even get into how detrimental our current fucked up, overcrowded penal system is to the prospects of rehabilitation or meaningful existence, let’s go ahead and acknowledge that it basically wouldn’t be that way if it weren’t for three little words: war on drugs.

  8. Katherine Coble Says:

    "My primary objection to the death penalty is that it’s complicated and expensive."Didn’t used to be until anti-death penalty folk instituted the mandatory appeals process. If, like me, however, you believe that the Death Penalty is a philosophically necessary ceiling on the punitive codes, you will adhere to the belief that no matter how costly it is we will continue to enforce it to uphold the Rule of Law. And, Chris, stop blowing things up in Hermitage.

  9. Chris Wage Says:

    Oh, and also that as you decrease the time and expense necessary to kill someone, you necessarily increase the number of innocent people killed, statistically speaking.As a good little anarchist, I am generally opposed to the use of state power to terminate lives — incarcerated or otherwise.

  10. Chris Wage Says:

    <blockquote>And, Chris, stop blowing things up in Hermitage.</blockquote>Say wha?

  11. Sarcastro Says:

    I agree with you that the death penalty, as it is currently being applied, is costly, lengthy, overly complicated, improperly applied and quite possibly killing the wrong guys.That said, there are still some people who need to be put down. Some are beyond repair. Paul Dennis Reid, for one.One of the functions of government is to take revenge out of the hands of the citizenry. By adjudicating disputes, the government keeps blood feuds and vigilante justice from running rampant and providing a forum for justice to be applied with theoretical impartiality. When a crime is so heinous and there is no doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator, what does it serve us to keep that person around? What useful purpose will they serve? I don’t believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, but like Mencken says, "Hanging one scoundrel, it appears, does not deter the next. Well, what of it? The first one is at least disposed of."and"The argument that capital punishment degrades the state is moonshine, for if that were true then it would degrade the state to send men to war… The state, in truth, is degraded in its very nature: a few butcheries cannot do it any further damage."

  12. Chris Wage Says:

    "One of the functions of government is to take revenge out of the hands of the citizenry. By adjudicating disputes, the government keeps blood feuds and vigilante justice from running rampant and providing a forum for justice to be applied with theoretical impartiality."This is an interesting argument, though I think to really make that case, you’d need to demonstrate the crisis of Hatfield/McCoy blood feuds overwhelming civil society in states that have abolished the death penalty..As for the quote by Mencken, you’ll be shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that I am not exactly a fan of the state sending men to war, either, and I find the parallel a bit strained to begin with. I am not clear on his logic, either. Yes, yes, dissolve the state, anarchy in the USA. I’m with him there, but as to our degraded state:The death penalty and conscription are both state coercion and exercises of power. So, because our state sucks we .. let it retain the power because "a few butcheries cannot do it any further damage"?Seems silly to me. If you want to kill state coercion you have to first weaken it. Anything else is revolutionary masturbation, and we see how well that worked out for the last 100 years of anti-state movements.

  13. Chris Wage Says:

    "One of the functions of government is to take revenge out of the hands of the citizenry. By adjudicating disputes, the government keeps blood feuds and vigilante justice from running rampant and providing a forum for justice to be applied with theoretical impartiality."Also, nothing in that argument intrinsically requires a penalty of death except perhaps by its expectation by the relatives of the victim, or the public.If the death penalty is removed as an option, and its application is gradually percieved as morally repugnant, it wouldn’t be an issue. "Revenge" (as opposed to justice) would be satisfied for the parties in question by the application of whatever punishment is seen as socially suitable, i.e. incarceration. It needn’t necessarily be death.

  14. Sarcastro Says:

    "Revolutionary masturbation"? So that’s why you kids are buying Che Guevara posters!"This is an interesting argument, though I think to really make that case, you’d need to demonstrate the crisis of Hatfield/McCoy blood feuds overwhelming civil society in states that have abolished the death penalty.."That was in regard to the entire justice system, not exclusively the death penalty.Let’s look at Wisconsin, they instituted the de facto death penalty in the case of Jeffery Dahmer. Sure, he was sentenced to life in prison as the law required and met a grisly end with no outrage from the public. Justice was served when he was beat to death.Coincidentally, Wisconsin, not exactly a bedrock conservative state, is looking to reinstate their death penalty after 150 years without it. The impetus behind is public outcry over specific grisly murders. The particular one in WI, is by a man who got out of prison in 2003. So much for rehabilitation.http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/14899980.htm

  15. Chris Wage Says:

    Well, I already admitted that our penaly system is fucked. It’s hardly designed to be rehabilitative. On average it probably produces people far more fucked up than they were before they went in.

  16. Sarcastro Says:

    So your solution is to put them in there for life so that they will wind up more fucked up?How would your crypto-anarchism solve this dilemma?

  17. Katherine Coble Says:

    <I><blockquote>And, Chris, stop blowing things up in Hermitage.</blockquote>Say wha?</I>You said (jokingly?) that the blogosphere revolves around you. I had just written a post about people blasting in Hermitage. Don’t worry. It made sense in my mind. <I>So your solution is to put them in there for life so that they will wind up more fucked up?</I>But they wouldn’t be DEAD! ??????As Milton would say "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven."

  18. Chris Wage Says:

    Step 1) reform the prison system so it’s not a capital industry and orient it towards some semblance of actual rehabilitationStep 2) eliminate the drug war to cut the flow of inmates by, what, 1/4?Step 3) ????Step 4) Profit!

  19. Sarcastro Says:

    So your answer is to put the Underwear Gnomes in charge of the penal system.

  20. Chris Wage Says:

    ObJoke: I’ve had dates like that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: