I've been asked about my stance on the death penalty before and I've addressed it on the show a time or fifteen. Never once, as I'm listening to some of the playback from the past shows, did I ever really get my thoughts in order on this. What stance you take, hey, go for it. Take your stand, wherever it may be but my reasons are as follows:
1. As a society, we're chock-full of double-standards. We want little to no violence in TV movies or programs but 24-hour, up-to-the-minute coverage of hostility overseas in full-color with digital enhancement on CNN is perfectly acceptable. We have a Department of Defense that engages in more Offense than anything. We have laws in place that allow an intruder to sue you and win if they're harmed in your home in the commission of a crime, no matter how severe and furthermore we have the constant spoonfeeding of bringing America back to family values BUT continually hiking the cost of living to the point of putting the strain on the family. Well, if I'm to believe killing is wrong then it's simply fucking wrong and there is no justification, no reason (morally or ethically) that neither I nor anyone else has for doing it. Period.
2. The Deterrent Factor: Many argue that the Death Penalty is a deterrent. I don't know how many other states fall in with this criteria BUT The State of Louisiana's criteria for sentencing of someone to death is the criteria of that person being unable to be rehabilitated by any means which renders the deterrent to another bullshit statement. It's a punishment and nothing more. In order to be a deterrent, wouldn't it have to be public? If others saw someone die (like some electrocutions that have gone horribly awry) then, quite possibly that might stick in someone's mind enough to sway them but the fact is they're not public, reporters are NOT allowed to take cameras in and the descriptions we get are vague at best. Even today, people still commit the act of murder. What exactly was it supposed to deter again?
3. Rehabilitation: If the person is deemed unable to be rehabilitated then the jury is given this concession over life imprisonment. Ok but let's consider the facts on imprisonment. The actual job of the prisons are to maintain security, custody and control and that's a wrap. Programs are put into place for rehabilitation BUT it must be the inmate who chooses whether or not to accept these programs and ACTIVELY take part. Otherwise, the prisons are left open to lawsuits by inmates who, upon release, repeat the same crime and then file suit claiming that the state did not do their job of rehabilitating them. By this standard every inmate in the State of Louisiana is unable to be rehabilitated. It's left up to them. By state criteria, each and every one of them is looking at the possibility of a death sentence for so much a repeated marijuana offense.
4. There have been too many mistakes on the part of our legal system to have this type of sentence, steeped in finality. Some are infuriated about how long appeals processes take and will rant for days about how one person or another is delaying their executions and they'd rather see executions carried out the sentences immediately after sentencing. This may work if you have evidence that conclusively points all indicators at the accused BUT we have cases of some severe circumstantial evidence at best being the only indication of any connection to a crime, no matter how weak. Due largely to this, our present system has yet another flaw and one far too large for me to simply throw my trust upon it.
5. Money Talks, Bullshit Walks: Capitol cases are a constant testament to this. If you can't afford decent attorneys, then you have only to look forward to your court-appointed attorney who is feeding from the same trough as the prosecutor. The public defenders are not well-funded enough to adequately defend anyone in a case of this magnitude and with court and attorney fees being astronomical, anyone living check to check (regardless of innocence or guilt) is subject to this, yet another, enormous flaw in our judicial system.
This is not the same as buying a rubber or a diaphragm. This is not the same as big business. The original question that was raised was a question of ethics and morality. Mine stand where they are and the legal reasons are the ones that back them each time. Even if our legal system were perfect I wouldn't support it for my moral reasons. Then again, if our legal system were perfect, I'd be out of a job.
