Various Thoughts XVIII

One of the most contentious issues in the dispute between theists and atheists concerning the origin and development of life is the structure of the eye. Many believe that it is too complex to have developed randomly. It is the debate between undirected evolution – which posits that the complicated structures within the orbit developed and learned to function together as a matter of pure chance – and the planned formation of a visual organ in of a sensory system suitable for each individual species, “directed evolution,” (a concept acceptable to many “believers”).

More complex, however, is reproduction itself. We no longer undergo binary fission, but how did we get from there to where we are now? If individual mutations are responsible, how did they happen to occur in a functional order and how did life survive through the intervening period, when the new system was developing – and that must have been a long time? New systems require new organs, new hormones, and new behaviors. All this by chance?

Without an eye there can be persistence of life. Perhaps olfactory sense could substitute during the intervening generations. But there would be an immediate end to life if there were no reproductive mechanism. Even if male and female organs developed simultaneously in individuals, those individuals would have to be in the same continent – near to each other and to find each other – and know what to do with their new parts. What are the odds?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I thought I'd throw in some questions about “cruel and unusual punishment [CUP]” and similar problems. Most of the issues apply to death in one way or another. First of all, I'm concerned about FDA rules. Some states permit capital punishment and use drugs to effect it. Since I don't think the FDA has approved any drugs for killing people, this constitutes “off-label” use. Is this CUP and is it permissible? Some states permit suicide, including assisted suicide. May you use off-label effects to do yourself in? I know that outdated pharmaceuticals are disqualified for executions, but I wonder if a “loved one” supplies a drug one day beyond its expiration date for employment by a suicide, has he committed a crime?

On occasion, death-penalty opponents invoke the legal process to delay an execution. Is it CUP to make a convict wait for his end a second time? May such outsiders convince the courts not to execute him but change the sentence to “life without parole” when the individual involved would rather die than spend fifty years in prison, or is this CUP? If they succeed it is contrary to the wishes of the convict involved. And is either penalty, itself, CUP?

Who should pay the costs of execution? Is it a right, according to the First Amendment, for someone opposed to capital punishment because of his religion, to seek reimbursement of his portion of such costs? And who pays the medical costs 0f those who attempt suicide but fail – especially if they were “assisted” incorrectly?

Do long periods of pre-trial confinement of those who cannot afford bail, who may flee, and those considered too dangerous to be on the streets? Suppose they are ultimately found not guilty. Should they be reimbursed for the time they served though rendered innocent? And since a speedy trial is part of our tradition (“justice delayed is justice denied”) is it CUP to allow lawyers to delay proceedings for any reason?

It all becomes more complicated because the laws of the various states are not the same. Should they be?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My “quality of life” may not be ideal, but I'll take it. My sense of taste is markedly reduced, making eating more a chore than a pleasure, but that's partly because my appetite leaves a lot to be desired. That symptom preceded the loss of taste so I can't put all the blame there, but together they take some of the excitement out of life, leaving a degree of boredom, but I'll take it. (By the way, “boredom” and “bedroom” share the same letters, which is fine considering the fatigue brought on by the chemotherapy and other meds. And also because I'm getting older.) I have a neuropathy which affects my feet, lower legs, and fingers. Because of the leg and foot involvement I totter. I'm unsteady and I fall or nearly fall a lot. And the finger symptoms make it hard for me to button buttons and hold some things. I'm a wreck.

But I'm alive and I'll take all the trade-offs.

I'd probably be far less sanguine if I were suffering – if, for example, I had unbearable pain. But I don't. The pain I have is well controlled and no real problem. Were I in pain I might be less interested in continuing the status quo. Some states would permit me to commit suicide. They might even help me. But I wonder if the solution to this problem, and others, is to eliminate it by suicide rather than deal with it. Some would follow the route of invoking nothingness but it's not for me. I prefer hope, denial, and a good pain management team. With their help I can maintain my belief in the “absolute” that harm to any individual, including the self, is wrong – even in the face of a less than ideal quality of life.

January 4, 2018

Life And Death

We're a socially active nation. And we're concerned about all our members. We protest the inequalities of the "system," and the individuals who succeed in it. We're concerned over those who don't succeed and, indeed, any group that believes itself to be oppressed.

But we're an inconsistent society. Life and death are issues that we treat with opposing views and with opposing tools. We take to the streets and scream in protest when we think that will be beneficial, and to the courts when we see polite and reasoned disputation as our best bet. Our arguments may not deal with our actual concerns but they are the tools that sometimes accomplish what we may not get otherwise.

For example, we are infuriated by an organization that defeats an opponent in court because that party cannot pay the fees or afford the time that large firms dictate by their wealth and their resources. Yet we do not hesitate to defeat a project by invoking laws which we argue weren't observed fully, like environmental impact studies. It doesn't matter if their claims are true or not as long as they can delay the project.

The same applies to our beliefs and actions when it comes to life and death. We support what we consider the right of people to have their doctor take their life when they consider it intolerable. Or to take it themselves. Suicide. Yet we oppose capital punishment, even for those who would prefer death to life in prison. Their suicide would be contrary to any principles about the sacredness of life because the government is involved. (Some oppose killing in war, most do not.)

Yet our society is one based on costs and benefits. We know there will be thirty to forty thousand dying each year in automotive accidents (and many more who are maimed or otherwise injured) but we don't want to stop automobile manufacture. It's a large industry that pays a large amount in taxes and employs large numbers of our citizens, in addition to providing what we consider a vital means of transportation. And, predictably, lives are lost in bridge, tunnel, and other infrastructure projects. And in manufacturing as well.

We tolerate the manufacture, sale, and use of alcohol and tobacco because they provide us with revenue – and because we don't know what to do about them. We march and protest when one individual is killed – especially by a police officer – but do not do so when a large number of murders are committed. As Joseph Stalin said, The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. The same is true of hundreds or thousands.

But what about abortions? According to Wikipedia, between 1970 and 2013 there were nearly fifty-two million (reported). A statistic, not a tragedy. Except for the fifty-two million who never had the option of extrauterine life. They had life but only intrauterine. That definition of life is disputed by those who favor “choice.” The choice, is the mother's, not the fetus's. (“Mother's,” by the way, implies something about the status of the fetus.)

Perhaps Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe in Roe v Wade) made that point of view when she said

I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. 'Norma', I said to myself, 'They're right'. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth—that's a baby!

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception'. It wasn't about 'missed periods'. It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit [involved in the Supreme Court case], I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion—at any point—was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear

Some may argue that those opposed to abortion should also oppose the death penalty. Consistency demands it. Both involve the taking of life. That's true, but there the similarity ends.

Those sentenced to death are viewed by most of us as evil and it is for their crimes that they are being penalized. But the same cannot be said of fetuses that have not harmed anyone. They have done nothing to deserve a death penalty. If they cause the mothers pain it is because of an act that their mothers, not the fetuses, performed. Even for acts performed under duress, although there may be some understandable debate, no one can blame the fetus. But we can remove it. Out of sight, out of mind.

There is far more to be said about life and death, but it will have to wait.

August 27, 2017

Not Guilty

“Not guilty.”

That's all it takes. Perhaps, in the timeless words of Yogi Berra, “It ain't over 'til its over,” but now it's over. That verdict ends it all (like a statute of limitations). You may be guilty of murder or of whatever other transgression you were accused, in fact you may brag about your guilt, but you beat the rap. They can never try you for the same crime again, even if there is new and irrefutable evidence of your guilt. It's over.

There are many similar instances when, because of a single occurrence, some hazard has been removed. Paradigmatic of such a situation are the words of Numbers (35:9-12), which describes “Cities of Refuge” to which one who has committed manslaughter may flee, so as to prevent his own killing by a family member of the victim. Until he is within one of those cities he is fair game for retaliation, but after that he is safe from any revenge. He had been in a very dangerous situation, but was now safe.

Generally speaking, there are numerous cases in which an individual moves from an insecure position – perhaps even a dangerous one – to one that removes the doubt and the risk, though the risks are of widely varying degrees of severity. A letter offering a job or acceptance to college, for example, may be a cause for celebration providing security that, until that moment was lacking. In those instances, however, the revocation of that position, though dishonorable, is possible, as contrasted with double jeopardy. In the case of a jury verdict there's no going back. Perhaps other charges will be filed, but you can never be tried for the same crime.

The security of a refugee reaching American land, as opposed to the risks faced a moment before, when the possibility, if apprehended, of immediate return to the land from which he was fleeing, cannot be minimized. And the protection provided by a church or some country's embassy is absolute (more true historically than recently). Perhaps it is a manifestation of the idea of sanctuary. The dangers faced until then were no longer to be feared. Those who entered have reached their own “city of refuge.” Certainly a border between countries provides at least temporary protection from retribution for violation of the laws of the land just left. And the possibility of death by abortion, an immediate and permanent risk, yields to the protection of the law immediately upon birth.

But crossing the Rubicon has its risks as well. Passing the “point of no return” leaves the past behind, but there are times when it would be preferable to be able to return. Ask any investor who missed his chance to “sell high” when he had the chance, but didn't do so before the market went rapidly downhill, or lost his chance to buy when the market was low. The previous conditions may return, but in the meantime he has squandered the possibility for profits this time around.

And in the heat of an argument, who has not said something that he later regretted? Sadly, you can't take it back once it's left your mouth. A relationship that had, until that time, been flourishing, can be damaged forever. Indeed, the same result may follow a “Freudian slip,” even if no conscious malice was intended. When you've given yourself away, there's no way to convince the hearer that you didn't really mean what you said.

We have all experienced missed opportunities. We have all missed a sale or rejected a job. We have all been in the wrong place at the right time or the right place at the wrong. Life is full of lost chances. For the most part, however, a missed chance is only a delay. Chances reoccur. A miss may be as good as a mile, but a mile is finite. You can “go home again.”

That's not always the case though. Wars, for example, leave casualties. So do accidents. And some injuries cannot be repaired. They leave permanent disabilities. We sometimes try to be philosophical about the situation, but our protestations are hollow. The euphemists among us avoid talk of disability, preferring “different ability,” but that doesn't change reality. However much we may wish, we can't make it so. There are times when we can't go back.

But nothing is more permanent than death. And nothing is more to be regretted than an unnecessary death. However saddened we may be when a loved one dies of “natural causes,” it is many times harder to comprehend and accept a death that was avoidable – either from war or violence. Our Constitution tells us that our country was formed with several aims, and among them was to “provide for the common defence [sic].” The promised protection was against foreign powers, with the against home-grown violence left to the States. There are failures in both cases, and we grieve not only for those directly affected but also for the society that cannot accomplish all it has pledged to do.

When the government itself chooses to take a life, however, it is understandable that, for many, grieving isn't adequate. The Supreme Court has forbidden capital punishment under some circumstances, but neither the Court, nor the Constitution, rejects it as an option. Still, there are many who believe that the state has no right to take a life. (Usually the popular proscription is aimed at capital punishment rather than war, but there are also those who are conscientious objectors to any form of violence.) The arguments are both philosophic – killing is wrong, and practical – the state may get it wrong and kill the innocent.

The latter possibility – the execution of someone who is not guilty – is, in many ways, very similar to the first case discussed. Both involve court rulings and in both cases the results are irreversible, though they are opposites. In one case the state provides possibly unwarranted immunity and permanent protection, in the other death – a similarly permanent result, even if exculpatory evidence later surfaces. Not all irreversible status changes are desirable – especially in this instance. An executed innocent soul may never have caused harm and certainly never will, but a freed murderer may kill others.

“Que sera, sera.” But it's not always for the best. And when it's unalterable, the potential for great evil exists along with that for great good.

Bully For You

We are a society that is confused. We have conflicting views both about the value of life and the conditions that justify its ending. (The end justifies the end.)

And the confusion – or better the inconsistency of our views – is manifested in very contrary ways. There are those who cry out loudly at the possibility of abortion, while promoting the death penalty and supporting the gun industry, and others who favor abortion and assisted suicide but consider the death penalty as sanctioned murder. Of course, there are some who are more consistent in their outlooks, but they're not newsworthy.

The rewards for the killers of animals are often higher, and the outrage louder, than for humans. We've come to accept the death of our fellow men as usual. In times of war the body counts may be in the thousands or tens of thousands – and sometimes large multiples of these. Unfortunate, but c'est la guerre. And we, in America, rarely face war ourselves. We even pay “volunteers” to fight and die for us when a conflict arises abroad. We can express our views without any personal risk. Medals aren't that expensive.

War at home, however, is more chancy for the average citizen. According to the New York Times (not the most reliable of sources, but I'll leave that for another time): “Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities.” And the murderer is often caught, but that presents us with a new problem – what do you do with him (or her)? What should be the penalty for murder? In 2007 the United Nations (like the Times, quite unreliable despite our hopes) called for a moratorium on the death penalty (Resolution 62/149). According to Wikipedia (itself not the most reliable of sources, but you get the point) there are 102 countries that proscribe it entirely, with an additional seven countries that only permit it for war crimes. Nonetheless, there are still 87 countries around the world that permit it under some circumstances. The majority of our own states still permit it, although many of them have not practiced capital punishment in recent years. (And the Bible permits it for certain offenses.)

But the reality – that of the existence of capital punishment – raises the question of whether it should be practiced at all. Some family members of individuals murdered would forgive the killers, but the majority are less understanding. Whether they seek vengeance, or simply justice, they call for the punishment – often the execution of those who have taken their loved ones. And they fear the possibility that the killer will one day escape or be released, or that he will murder again either in the prison or outside.
However there are many who believe that the government should not be involved in killing people, and that our tax money should not be used to support such a practice. They argue, quite convincingly, that there are inequities in its application, plea bargains by those who can afford good lawyers, and there have been instances when innocent people have been executed. Their primary solution to these problems is imprisonment – often a life sentence without the possibility of parole. That, in their view, is more humane. 

But is it? Or is it cruel and unusual punishment? What would be the perspective of a twenty-year-old who knew that he would die in prison after years of abuse by other prisoners and by sadistic prison guards? Would the prospect of fifty years of bullying affect the thinking of someone who already felt guilty for taking the life of another person? And if he preferred to die, would we let him? We may favor assisted suicide in general, but might prohibit it in this instance, believing that our government should play no part in the taking of a life. (Only the free are entitled to kill themselves.) Not only that, but there are many who would argue that lifetime imprisonment with no hope of anything but solitary confinement or bullying is fitter punishment of a murderer than letting him off the hook immediately. Perhaps this perspective contributes to the frequency, by murderers, of “suicide by cop.”    (Admit it.  You're opposed to the death penalty because you think that life in prison is crueler, and more deserved.)

The pragmatic, discarding emotion, may balance the costs of lifetime imprisonment and execution, remembering that the latter, if not the former, would be accompanied by years of appeals – some mandatory – placing a great burden on the judiciary. It would be cheaper not to seek, try, or punish murderers, and that would also eliminate the possibility of convicting the wrong person. If the family suffered because of the lack of closure it would be a necessary and acceptable forfeiture on their part to favor the economic and ethical needs of the community. As would the losses suffered by the families of additional victims of murderers. And there is plenty of room for debate over whether the possibility of capital punishment has any preventive effect on future crimes.

It is too much to expect anyone to view all killing as wrong, or to caution against any. War will always exist as will the call for defense, rather than turning the other cheek.  For both soldiers and civilians we allow murder, and even encourage it, during war.  (We cannot forget the firebombing of Dresden and other cities, the atom bomb, and the refusal to bomb the tracks to Auschwitz, in addition to the straightforward killing of enemy combatants.)  Whether abortion is acceptable will also remain a subject of debate as will euthanasia and suicide. But remaining blind to the justifications, various implications, and results of particular kinds of killing is not a service to the community. 

 And, when dealing with individuals convicted of murder, "sensitivity" and "understanding" are not always services to them, or to the families of those murdered.

Next episode: “Love And Marriage” – And all the variations thereof.

Justifies?

Let's leave the lawyers aside. And the journalists. Otherwise we all agree. The end never justifies the means. Except when it does. Machiavelli was a proponent of that position.ⁱ It was his view that the ends were of primary importance, and you did whatever was necessary to achieve them.

The principle is not simply one of realpolitik. It's reality. My daughter had a baby a few months ago.ⁱⁱ He cries. That's what babies do. It's not pleasing to everyone around. Apart from soiled diapers and other sources of discomfort, he uses the crying to signal hunger. Day and night. That means that neither my daughter nor her husband sleeps very well. The end (the goal, that is – forget the issue of the diaper) is a full stomach. The means is the crying. Not very pleasant, but it works.

And there are those with diseases that require medication. As we've always been told of a medicine, “the worse it tastes, the better it is for you.” It's even worse with chemotherapy for cancer. The drugs are toxic and they make you sick. But if they have a positive effect on the tumor it's all worthwhile. The end justifies the means.

It's not so clear though. Part of the reason is that we don't all agree on the ends or the means. Many believe in unfettered “artistic expression,” even if that means justifying what others consider to be the use of pornography for profit; some view marriage as an end in itself, and would excuse some degree of abuseⁱⁱⁱ as an acceptable cost in order to achieve this end. And there is disagreement about whether sexual intercourse is justified as a means – because new life may result – or if is an end in itself. And the arguments about religion, contraception, and evolution complicate the issue still further.

Perhaps the most striking example of the problem, however, relates to one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shall not kill.” It's not really clear what that means – whether, for example, it exempts self-defense, or war. It isn't absolute, since the Bible itself speaks of death penalties and the like. But there are many who would ban the practice of capital punishment while others, although they may view it as a sad means, consider it a justified method to achieve the ends of lowering the murder rate and punishing abominable crimes. For some it's simply a regrettable necessity (to save face, for the sake of pride, to punish evil, or a combination of these and other motives).^iv Whether they're right or not isn't the point. They accept the means of achieving the end.^v And in many jurisdictions, capital punishment is well established, with the United States Supreme Court accepting it as legitimate.

If society can legitimately kill, however, how does that apply to its members? Paul Kersey^vi believed that he was justified in acting as a vigilante, and a number of apologetic movies followed his. A decade later, with the subsequent approval of the public, Bernhard Goetz meted out his own form of justice in the New York City subway. And the technique worked. The end was accomplished by means which were questionable at best.^vii But the end was accomplished.

Vigilantism, however, is not a new phenomenon. Ancient societies permitted, and sometimes encouraged, retribution for criminal acts. In the Bible^viii we read the story of the rape of Dinah and the retribution taken by her brothers for the crime.^ix Indeed, what we view as an unspeakable crime, murder, is often viewed by their proponents as a necessary and justifiable “honor” action. That the punishment may be given the victim in addition to – or instead of – the perpetrator does not mitigate the idea that the means – perhaps a killing – is warranted in order to achieve the end of regaining the family's honor.

No. It's not so clear. It's not clear because we live in a “multicultural” world, and we disagree both about what constitutes and what justifies means and ends, and about what qualifies as acceptable or even obligatory behavior. It's even uncertain in more homogeneous settings because people have different levels of tolerance for “deviant” behavior even when their backgrounds are similar. Or they may disagree over the basic question regarding the justification of means for worthy aims.

But I'll deal with that next week.

Next episode: “The Means” – Next week. The final installment dealing with this question.

I        The Prince, by Niccoló Machiavelli, 1532. In reality there probably was a Latin version available as early as 1513, but the first actual printing was in 1532 and in Italian.

ii        Her sixth.

iii      It is important to remember that abuse is not always physical, whichever partner may initiate it. Verbal and psychological abuse may be perpetrated by an individual who fears loss in a physical battle. In many ways the “henpecked” husband is analogous to the “abused” wife.

iv      For example, Marshal Will Kane of Hadleyville, New Mexico Territory, in High Noon.

v        The same question may be raised about other forms of punishment. If there is a high recidivism rate indicating the unlikelihood that rehabilitation is occurring, incarceration is simply a way of getting criminals off the streets using warehousing as our means of accomplishing that end.

vi       The Charles Bronson character in the Death Wish series.

vii      “The bumper stickers were everywhere in NYC - 'Ride with Bernie -- he Goetz 'em'! The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically -- so much so the authorities even held back the numbers -- the truth hurt too much.” – So wrote the Huffington Post, February 21, 2015.

viii     Genesis chapter 34.

ix       Interestingly the name Dinah is the homophone of a Hebrew word for “the law.”

 

__________________?

Have you ever wondered what your offspring would be like if you had married someone else?ⁱ What would theyⁱⁱ look like? Would their intelligence be different? And what about personality? Chances are there wouldn't be that much of a difference. You'd probably have chosen a mate with some similarities to the one you did – physical, intellectual and personality ones – and that means the children wouldn't be all that much different from what you have. Your parenting techniques would probably be much like the ones you used or are using now, so nurture, like nature, wouldn't vary all that much from what's currently the case. Of course you'll never know. If that had been the case you'd have other offspring and there would be no one available for the comparison with them.

But there would be one major difference – _____________ [fill in with your children's namesⁱⁱⁱ] wouldn't exist. The ones you love dearly, simply wouldn't be there. And you'd never know the difference.^iv Nor would they. Not existing, how could they know the opportunity lost to them? And whatever impact they would have had on the world won't come about, but no one will ever be aware of that. And their children – the images of your beloved sons and daughters – will never be known to you. That, though, is life. Or, more to the point, that isn't life. And, of course, there's always the possibility that you might never have existed.

Abortion is like that – the child^v lost will never be known by us, nor ever self-aware. But there's one important difference, because no other would be born in his place. The first situation – a different child because one of the parents is different – represents a kind of zero-sum exercise, even if the gain and loss can't be compared because they won't both exist. In the case of abortion, it's all loss. It's not zero-sum, but all negative. The starting point – the fetus – will never mature into a human. It will be ablated before it is fully developed. Almost the same as contraception, except that the latter is more passive than active.^vi Almost the same, but not quite. There's no need to destroy what never existed. In that way, it's more zero-sum than negative.

What is the meaning of life? That's what it all comes down to, even if I have no idea what is the answer to the question. I don't even know what the question is.^vii It is clearly a matter of concern to the general population though. Just as the question of abortion^viii troubles society, so does the use of capital punishment in American society.^ix And there are numerous vegetarians and their “extremists,” vegans. Where they all stand on the treatment of bacterial infections, which require the killing of bacteria, I don't know. Perhaps, because they consider vegetables fair game, this doesn't bother them.^x,xi But what about killing tapeworms? And even if they believe the use of leather should be proscribed, what's the status of wool? Is there a single answer to the question of life or do individuals and society have to draw their own lines?

I don't recall the invention of fire. Nor do I remember Socrates, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, or Woodrow Wilson. I hadn't been born. I didn't exist. Suppose you never existed. Of course you wouldn't be aware of it. Nor would you be aware that you weren't aware. Nor would you be. You would certainly have no memory of those past events I mentioned. Or anything else. But, unaware, you wouldn't care.

That's all philosophy. The good thing about being a philosopher is that you can ask unanswerable questions and, if you come up with any kind of a system to account for the problems you raise, you can use terminology so arcane that it won't be understood. The only person who can come close is the clergyman. His questions, however, even if answered by unprovable assertions, are usually followed by an understandable explanation – but one that often ends with a declaration of faith.

So what's the point? There are no answers. The “ultimate question” will always be around and no one will be able to answer it. All we can do is imagine. And as you're considering questions of life and death – as you're formulating a position on the issues raised here – imagine, for example, that _____________ had never been born.

Next episode: “There She Is, Myth America?” – A conventional solution to an unconverniotnal problem.

i     Read on even if you're not married. The points are the same.

ii     For a single child make the appropriate pronoun substitution here and in later references.

iii     Or, if you have no children, the name or names of whoever is dear to you.

iv     You'd love whoever was there and not give any thought to what might have been.

v     Make substitution(s) here if needed. This is the last time I'll mention it. From now on you're on your own.

vi     Intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are abortifacients, not contraceptives.

vii    For Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything was 42. I guess that's as good as anything, even if the saga's computer had decided that the question was to find the product of nine and six. By the way, it words in base thirteen – however neither Adams nor the computer was working with this base.

viii   Viewed by the courts as an issue of privacy.

ix    Ignoring the question of whether mistakes may be made, there is a real argument about whether it is ever justified to take a life. Some pacifists don't even consider that war justifies such action. And self-defense is not an adequate reason. Life was given by G-d and only he is justified in taking it away. In the final chapter of Samuel II (24:14) David says: “... let us fall into the hand of the Lord for his mercies are great; don't let me fall into the hand of man.”

x    Some claim that vegetables are sensate and we should feel their pain.

xi    I'd view that as a facetious question except that I know that pacifists might not consider “self-defense” as a satisfactory reason for killing, and that some religious believers may prefer to leave all healing in G-d's “hands.”

Death And Texas

 

Just about every year Texas tops the list as the state with the most executions, with 17 in 2010. This is twice as many as the next state, Ohio with 8 executions. www.antideathpenalty.org

Since 1976 Texas has executed about 375 people, followed by Virginia with about 100. And before each execution there is some kind of demonstration demanding that the sentence not be carried out. The two main arguments against the death penalty are that the individual being executed may, in fact, be innocent but the penalty is irrevocable, and even if he is guilty, the death penalty is atavistic, an act of vengeance. The government has no right to take any life, irrespective of the circumstances. They maintain, moreover, that opposition to the death penalty may be causing some prosecutors to look for lesser charges and it may be inducing some juries to acquit murderers or find them guilty of lesser crimes. Because they recognize the evil of murder, however, and the possibility that death penalty supporters may have public opinion on their side, opponents often recommend a sentence of life in prison without parole, both because, in their view, it may be appropriate, and in order to satisfy the others who believe that execution is a just punishment so that the killer will never be on the street again and have the possibility of killing someone else.ⁱ

It's a neat package. If only matters were so simple.

We make mistakes. There's no denying that. Fortunately, especially as pertains to our legal system, we're right far more often than we're wrong. By itself that doesn't justify errors, but it is important to look at all the implications of those mistakes. As opponents of the death penalty point out, the conviction of an innocent person leading to his execution is an irrevocable error.

Suppose an individual is convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Should that sentence be changed to life in prison without parole because the conviction may have been erroneous and thus the sentence unwarranted? After all, after the execution there will be no way to address the grievance.

Perhaps, but some who are imprisoned escape. And not all murderers are sentenced to death. Some receive short sentences or are paroled from life sentences. However it has occurred though, the freedom of someone guilty of killing is also a mistake that may have lethal consequences.ⁱⁱ According to the Department of Justice,ⁱⁱⁱ within three years after release of an individual who had been imprisoned for “homicide,” 1.2% were re-arrested for a new homicide.^iv There are no separate statistics for those who commit premeditated murder – a more serious crime than homicide – but it is likely to be higher.^v The statistic doesn't help us understand how often convicted murderers escape from prison, often killing guards to attain their liberty. And it certainly doesn't include information on the frequency of release and subsequent homicide by accused murderers who were acquitted because evidence was excluded, or who were found not guilty because of insanity or duress or (real or claimed) self-defense. These statistics don't excuse the execution of an innocent person, but they bring a little perspective to the question. What is the risk of an error in the other direction, and how might we avoid that? How many deaths result from our failure to put murderers to death?

Suppose a jury convicts an individual of murder and the judge sentences him to a period of imprisonment. Suppose that following his release he kills someone else. In view of the known rate of recidivism, should he not have been released because of the possibility he would kill again and that the death of new victim would be permanent, and there would be no way to address the grievance after it occurred? Should all those convicted of murder of homicide get "life without parole" sentences?

The same questions – could there have been an error, and will the convicted criminal strike again after his release – may be asked about any crime and any trial. A mistake may be made, and even if there is not a death penalty the emotional, fiscal, and time loss effects will be permanent. They cannot be addressed in retrospect.^vi For this reason, should we end the idea of trial for any individual accused of a crime? Should the whole question of judicial decisions – not just the death penalty for murder – be rethought because we are not perfect? The idea that mistakes are made is one that society as a whole must consider, and thought given to the extent to which we are willing to accept mistakes to prevent an even worse outcome.

And that is a question which is not limited to the legal system. There is a predictable death rate caused by automobile accidents. Deaths and disease are sure to result from legal use of alcohol, tobacco, and other substances. Mining deaths are common. Even construction – whether of high rise buildings, bridges, tunnels or highways – will predictably result in deaths and injuries. We know it will happen and the results will not be reversible. They are irrevocable. We could make all these activities illegal but we won't, even though those who die won't be murderers. Not only do we make mistakes, but we are ready to accept death^vii

However we only protest when the death penalty is involved, since we may make an error and since we must not allow the government to kill – in this case to execute those convicted of a capital offense by our own citizens. Is there any way to avoid errors, and, if not, are we better off not making any decisions so we can prevent mistaken ones? Or is this an error as well?

But even these considerations leave questions unanswered.

Suppose another country invades us. Should we surrender immediately to avoid the need to kill others and and to prevent the deaths of our own sons and daughters? Is killing ever a justified act by a government?

In terms of the justifiability of killing, there are differences of opinion. She was speaking of war, but Golda Meir said, "We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours." She recognized the reality of death in war, but, like death penalty opponents, she questioned the morality of taking the lives of others.

On the other hand, in a release dated March 14, 2004, al-Qaeda stated "You love life and we love death."^viii Different versions of this statement have been made by Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, Adis Medunjanin, the jihadist who crashed while fleeing police, and many others. Martyrdom is an ideal in some countries. It is inculcated in children – often by their own parents or clerics – before they are old enough to form independent opinions. For them death is not something to be avoided because of its finality. It's a preferred outcome. And they're not alone. Indeed, some convicted of murder would choose the death penalty over a life sentence with no possibility of release. Should they – especially if they admit to the act – be given the choice? Should they be permitted suicide?^ix Or might this be too easy for "martyrs," as well as too tempting for innocent persons who fear a life in prison? The two major objections to the death penalty – the possibility of error and killing sanctioned by the state – are not as clear as they may seem.

According to the Bible, the death penalty is warranted for a number of crimes including intentional murder.^x That, however, is not a satisfactory justification in the eyes of many. We don't even agree on the definition of murder. So what should be done? I don't know the answer. I'm not smart enough. But I do know that the debate is not as black and white as it's often painted. And that's a start.

Next episode: "Politics As Usual" – Sadly that's the case.

i     Their approach is not complicated. Death penalty opponents see this as a way around those who raise an objection with which they may disagree but which they cannot defeat in argument. It's the lesser of evils. "Life isn't fair, it's just fairer than death, that's all." — William Golding, The Princess Bride. (Of course that's not what Golding meant, but life isn't fair.)

ii     The pain suffered by the murdered party and his family is not considered in the statistics.

iii    “Bureau of Justice Statistics Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994” Ojp.usdoj.gov. 2002-06-02. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm. Cited in Wikipedia.

iv    Or multiple homicides.

v      One additional action would be the establishment of a registry of those convicted of homicide comparable to that for convicted sex-crime offenders. The recidivism rate for rape is 2.5%, which is higher than that for homicide, but statistics don't seem to be the determining factor. The rearrest rate for car theft is 78.8%, for larceny 74.6%, and for robbery 70.2% , but they don't get a registry. It's hard not to conclude that there's a political component, or one inflamed by the media. In any case, the establishment of such a registry for released murderers might be useful. That's a life sentence.

vi    Actually the fiscal effects can be addressed at the cost of the time and money involved in a countersuit. But this is not always possible when the government is the opponent. And it is not always wise to invest the time, money, and emotion in a new trial even if it is.

vii    At least the death of others, as long as it makes our own lives more enjoyable..

viii    http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/03/14/you_love_life_and_we_love_death/

ix   After all, suicide is now accepted, and abortion is morally and legally sanctioned.

x     But not accidental killing or necessary killing as in time of war.