Decius wrote:
] This is an occasion to discuss my perspective on the Death
] Penalty.

Good! Some real meaty stuff to polarize the communitiy and get some good disucssions going. Let me start by saying that i basically agree, and oppose capital punishment on primarily moral grounds... grounds which argue that, as you say, capital punishment is more retribution than deterrent, and that retribution without need is barbarism.

] We have a real problem in America with oversimplified
] responses to complex problems.

] Americans believe, ultimately, that violence solves problems.

both excellent points. it comes down, in the end, as you touch on, to the fact that violence is the instant gratification solution, easier than establishing a framework for evaluating, analysing and responding to societal problems with reason and fairness. in cases where the latter is impossible (such as, the moment i am being attacked by a mugger), there may be no other viable response which preserves your own existence or way of life... any other time, there's almost certainly a better, if harder, way to approach the situation.

to argue a devils advocate position for a sec, a strictly rational analysis could factor in probailities of rehabilitation and come to the conclusion that certain classes of criminal will never be capable of safely existing within the confines of society. Isn't it possible that at a certain point, the costs of keeping this person alive and safely outside the system, for 30, 40, 50 years, become unjustifible? Of course, you get into difficult arguments about how much a mans life is worth... is one mans life worth more than another? What if the money used to pay for his incarceration was used to fund programs to reduce drug use, improve schools, save the lives of impoverished children. Is this mans life worth the death or suffering of others? Obviously our system is not set up in such a way that such redistribution of funds would be automatic, but could it be? Is there a solution in which there is a net benefit to permanent removal of unrehabilitatable felons?

inignoct wrote:
] to argue a devils advocate position for a sec, a strictly
] rational analysis could factor in probailities of
] rehabilitation and come to the conclusion that certain classes
] of criminal will never be capable of safely existing within
] the confines of society.

This seems rational until you realize you are talking about killing someone for the economic benefits. The same logic would have Ann Coulter herding people who are seriously injured on the job into the gas chamber. We aren't in a state of nature. The costs of keeping these people alive are not unbearable. In fact they are miniscule, and therefore it is cruel to withhold them. The bulk of the cost of the justice system comes from people that sell pot, and I'm sure that Ann is more then happy to pay for their housing and feeding as long as they aren't free.

Decius wrote:
] We have a real problem in America with oversimplified
] responses to complex problems. When kids are shooting up their
] high schools we march on the video game companies. Obviously
] most people who play video games don't kill people. Obviously
] some video games can encourage some people to become more
] violent. Inconsistent results mean we are dealing with
] a symptom and not the source of the problem.

I am reminded of my recent post about the MediaWise report card on violence in video games. I can't help but think there's a connection here.

In your first statement above, in bold, I am reminded of a discussion we had not too long ago about the limited success of sound-bite op-ed as foreign policy in particular, and the problem with the public's short attention span in general. Not only is it becoming increasingly rare to find people making long-term commitments, it is perhaps even more rare to find people thinking deeply for themselves. Although I do not plan to engage on this thread, I very much appreciated your essay.

When it comes to the use of statistics in root cause analysis of human behavior, members of the general public, most scientists included, are ill equipped to make logically sound arguments. A few thoughts:

Most people who play video games don't kill people because most people don't kill people. Video games are no more relevant than hair color.

Violent video games can provoke violent people to action. Silence and isolation can also provoke violent people to action.

People can argue all manner of chains of logic to support their beliefs. One might be inclined to say that violent video games lead to actual violence. The basis may vary. In counter, I might point out that the crime rate is often higher in low income areas. More poor children play video games, and they play more of them. Public education delivered in low income areas is, on average, of lower quality in comparison to that of other income groups. Poor children are thus more likely to play action games like "Manhunt" than intellectual games like Sim City 4 or Flight Simulator 2004. The positive correlation between violent video games and actual violence confers no causality. I would argue that the root causes are closer to the lack of quality education and real opportunities for personal growth. Ultimately, it is difficult to prove anything without controlled experiments, which are impossible to conduct properly in a free society.

Suppose we discovered that people with blue (dyed) hair were X% more likely to commit a felony than people with brown or blond hair. What does this mean? What is the appropriate response? If we decided to ban blue hair dye, would we expect it to reduce the number of felonies? Does blue hair dye cause the felony? Does denying it prevent that person from committing the felony? In a world where people are free to choose whether or not to dye their hair blue, how could we ever know?

I was mixed on use of the death penalty for some time. Reading about someone like John Wayne Gacy or others who really are completely beyond the pale, you have to wonder if society is better off just culling them from the pool, to absolutely eliminate any influence they might have, even from behind bars. Yet, the ability of the State to take human life is one that is ominous in the extreme.

What finally solidified my opinion was something I heard on NPR a couple of years ago. It was a radio documentary about execution, in death-happy Texas, I believe. It followed the entire final process of an execution, spoke to the guards and the families. As each person fulfilled their proscribed part of the ritual, you could see the cold horror. These were men acting not in the inflamed rage or anger or madness of the offender, it was quiet and, well, volitional. The guards and escorts suffer from nightmares and psychological aftereffects. the doctors act in a way that is pposed to everythingthey have learned. And no one person is required to take responsibility.

To gather together to kill a man is wrong, just wrong. It is not the best of humanity, it is the most superstitious and primal.

Now, if someone destroyed my children, I would spend the rest of my life with visions of terrible retribution but it is the role of the community to encourage the best of what a human can achieve.

On Sep't 11, America could have been a model of this ideal. Bush could have exhorted us first to grasp hands with our neighbors, to come together in community and do good to each other in return for this pain. The trumpet of vengence could have been set down with the assurance of seeking justice, not retribution.

BridgetAG wrote:^

All humans have basically the same genes so (as quoted from "the maxx") it is important for a person to realize that he or she has the potential to be just as rotten as anybody else. With just a slight nudge in the initial conditions of the cultural broth, I could have been a serial killer or something. I guess if you think of humanity as a single organism like a colony of ants or something, then everyone is equally "guilty". I'm not making much sense so I'll go away and hide now.