Stuff to See!

Paternally Themed Rants

So it's Father's Day.
Not being a father myself (thank goodness), and being separated at least geographically from my own father makes this one of the less important holidays that the power which is Hallmark would force upon me. If he was here, or I was there (Ohio), things may be different. We'd likely be watching or listening to a baseball game, even if the Orioles seem to have lost the ability to win recently.
I had considered waiting until they won again to post new offal to this site. In the background here in my hovel the current O's-Rockies game blares in the background. Colorado's up 2-zip, but the game still goes on. In the end, though, I just have too much to say.
The weirdness seems to have left my life recently, which I guess is a good thing. I did make a small purchase of the Japanese Binaltech Hound, an import-only 1:24 scale model of a Jeep Wrangler which also transforms into a robot, which is a pretty neat trick for a scale model car. Nice piece, actually, although I'm not sure which mode I prefer. The Binaltech line has been transmogrified into an Alternators line stateside, the main difference being that the Japanese models have die-cast metal, whereas the American models don't. Eventually I may take pics of the Smokescreen toy I picked up some time ago (a Subaru Impreza rally car, replete with too many sponsor labels).
But I digress.
We have more atrocities committed against Americans in the Middle East (yet another decapitation), which is nothing other than reprehensible, regardless of any transgressions by the American military. I wondered whether he was a father, whether he had children either with him in Saudi Arabia, or here in the United States. Horrendous acts of lesser degree happen all the time around the world, whether premeditated or random, and to a certain extent they have become a concomitant of existence. In a clear case of familiarity breeding contempt, the more often these things happen, the less the resultant outrage. A decapitation of an expatriate, though, has fanned the hawkish fires, and by and large our people cry for blood.
Speaking of crying for blood, Maryland just exercised the death penalty on a death row convict, someone whose deeds screamed out for capital reprisal. I agree with the death penalty, although not for the reasons most people do. Some of these reasons seem quite convincing: the tax spending required to maintain a death row inmates ($40,000.00/year at least), the lack of adequate prison facilities that leads to repeat offenders being out on the streets until they do something truly heinous, the backlog in the criminal court system. Sure, these are all factors which support the use of the death penalty, but the number of death row inmates wouldn't really free up much room in state prisons, or relieve the criminal courts.
There are, of course, those who disagree with the death penalty. They say that human life is sacred and should not be summarily destroyed by the state. They say that rehabilitation may be an option. They say that an innocent man or woman may be executed unfairly. They say that the inmate suffer more in prison than by being executed by lethal injection. These are valid points, too, although rehabilitation does not work in some instances, and an existence in jail is something that some convicts may even prefer to the rigors of the outside world, although that is most likely a very small minority of people.
So why do I agree with the death penalty? Is it a deterrent? The homicide rate in Baltimore alone for the past 10 years makes me scoff at that idea, let alone other violent crimes. Is it a just punishment for heinous crimes? I don't think so. Death is one of those things that can't be reversed, and the thought of taking an innocent life is uncomfortable at the least. Small comfort would it be for the family of an executee to hear, years later, that it was done in error. How do you make up for that? You can't.
So why do I agree with it? To be strict, I agree with the concept, but not the way it has been implemented. For one thing, it's not uniform throughout the country. Some states (12 of them) don't even have it, and the other 32 vary in their implementation. Texas, for example, has executed over half of its death row inmates. Other states have executed less than one percent. This inconsistency mars the process and undermines the effect of the penalty as a deterrent, unless you happen to live in Texas.
To be effective as a deterrent, the death penalty must be swiftly and frequently applied. The frequent stays of execution in various states dilute the effectiveness of the deterrent, giving inmates more time for remorse they never had, and more time for the victimized families to suffer with the knowledge that a being who has caused great harm in their lives lives still. The main weakness of this point of view is that a truly innocent person may be put to death prematurely, only to find that evidence which would clear him comes to light far too late.
This weakness points to a quality of the American justice system. I hesitate to call it a flaw because I believe strongly in the right of an accused to have a trial by a jury of his peers, which would pass judgment on his deeds. The quality, of course, is the effectiveness of the legal process, which is as much rhetoric as it is real truth. A persuasive prosecutor may influence a jury based on slender evidence, while a less effective prosecutor may fail to find conviction based on the way he mistreats the preponderance of evidence at hand. This says nothing about the various kinds of legal trickery which can jettison evidence wholesale based on how it was collected in order to protect the constitutional rights of the accused, like in the O.J. Simpson trial 10 years ago.
Oddly enough, based on the standards used to find criminal conviction, I agree with the findings of the criminal case, as a reasonable doubt was created by Simpson's legal Dream Team in the minds of the jury. I also agree with the civil court decision, based on preponderance of evidence rather than eliminating reasonable doubt. An interesting dichotomy, one which can point the spotlight toward the single weakest part of the whole system which would support the death penalty: the need to find an accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Even when there is a preponderance of evidence, as in the Simpson case, a truly effective defense lawyer can plant a seed of reasonable doubt.
So the main factors which I see contributing to the ineffectiveness of the death penalty are the criminal justice system which demands expelling reasonable doubt (protecting against sentencing an innocent man, but also protecting many other guilty men), and the inconsistent use of the deterrent.
In order for the death penalty to be truly effective, the final court decision, based on preponderance of evidence, must stand, and the execution must fall swiftly upon the guilty party, within a year of the final court decision. Appeals in capital cases must be filed within a short period of a lower court's decision, in order to expedite the completion of the process, which would minimize taxpayer expense and minimize the period of suffering caused by the continued existence of the guilty party (as decided by a jury of his peers).
The death penalty must also be universal, or eliminated entirely. While it is unlikely that the scum who would perpetrate these evil deeds would suddenly travel west of the Mississippi to commit their heinous acts (most states which eschew the death penalty are east of the Mississippi river, aside from the non-contiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii, the furthest west being North Dakota), for consistency alone, there should be none. Why should people in Wisconsin bemoan the existence of a criminal who has done great harm while people in Texas can at least look forward to an execution, although that does not bring back the loved ones who were lost? Sure, consistency is a weak argument, but uniformity of punishment is something which may make the borderline criminal, driven by passion maybe, to think twice and grab a glass of perspective, rather than grab a handgun, or a knife, to commit murder.
How this became a death penalty rant I can't even say. Let's leave this distasteful subject and move onward to nicer things.