Saturday, February 01, 2003

Ashcroft's Quest The New York Times reports today that Attorney General John Ashcroft is intervening in a case in New York, demanding that federal prosecutors seek the death penalty for a murder suspect with ties to a Columbian drug ring.  His order comes after the defendant has already signed an agreement that he will testify against members of the drug ring in exchange for a life sentence.  Locking the guy up forever is evidently not enough for Ashcroft, and the value of a signed plea bargain seemingly goes out the window when Ashcroft smells blood.  Anyone think this is a terrible precedent to set if the DOJ hopes to get people to cooperate through plea bargains for any number of crimes, including the war on terror?  "Sign right here and we'll cut your sentence short in exchange for your testimony...OR NOT!" I want to use this to write about the death penalty, but I must digress and talk about Ashcroft.  John Ashcroft is, in my opinion, a terrifying man.  His passion for inserting his religious conviction into government is exceeded only by his passion for the death penalty.  I've read in a number of places that he reads very little other than the Bible (evidently skipping the parts about Jesus' compassion in favor of Old Testament eye-for-and-eye goodies--perhaps Real Live Preacher could enlighten us on this one), including a stark refusal to read any newspapers at all.  Impressive.  I can only assume his obsession with death has something to do with losing the 2000 Senate election to a man who had died two weeks before the vote. The death penalty is an example of something that I've changed my views about in the last ten years since college.  I used to consider it cruel and unusual, barbaric, unjustifiable, etcetera, and this was the basis for my opposition.  Now I oppose it for different reasons.  I no longer really consider it unjustifiable on its face--I do, in fact, believe that there are some crimes and some criminals that are so horrific and so unredeemable that they have forfeited any claim to the right to live. But I do not believe the death penalty can be justified, nevertheless.  There are two reasons for my conviction: 1.  The application of the death penalty is subjective inherently.  This is the reason for massive racial disparities in its application, for socioeconomic disparities, for regional disparities, etcetera.  Paranoia and political motivations result in prosecutors seeking the death penalty in order to appear tough on crime.  It is impossible in a world with biases of all sorts to ensure that it is applied fairly, and subjective application of murder is not right, period. 2.  More strongly, the possibility of killing innocents is too much.  Supporters of the death penalty must ultimately accept one of two possibilities.  A)  There is no chance that anyone innocent would ever be killed.  Or B)  The killing of an innocent person through the death penalty is justifiable. There is no middle ground.  One of these two statements must be true if you support the death penalty. Possibility A is laughable.  Has any human institution ever been perfect?  More pointedly, has any institution run by the government ever worked perfectly?  I find it pathetically ironic that conservatives who tout the importance of small government because they don't trust federal institutions are the same people who most vociferously support the death penalty (which is not to exempt spineless Democrats from blame--if anything, they deserve more blame for refusing to suck it up and say "no").  Possibility B requires, in my view, death penalty defenders to demonstrate that the death penalty saves lives through deterrence or to demonstrate that it is worth killing innocents to punish the guilty.  The latter is, of course, the ultimate hypocrisy--punish the guilty for killing innocents even though the process of punishing the guilty would result in the killing of innocents.  The former is also preposterous--Texas would have no crime whatsoever if the deterrence argument is true.  What criminal thinks "You know, I probably shouldn't kill this guy because they might give me the death penalty if I get caught."  Or, alternatively "You know, I think I'll go ahead and kill this guy.  No death penalty in this state, so what's the worst that can happen?  Withering away in prison for the rest of my life?"  There are no credible studies supporting the notion that the death penalty deters. If the alternative--life without parole--wasn't possible, then my opposition would soften, because I do believe punishment for crimes is necessary.  But life imprisonment is pretty darned harsh, you know?  Why do we need to do the irreversible?  Often, the demand for capital punishment is driven by concern for the families of victims.  I don't want to suggest that the suffering of those families is not an important consideration, but allowing this to run what should be a fair and objective judicial system is simply wrong--there is no moral difference between the government killing people on the behalf of victims and outright vigilantism.  No moral difference.  And I won't even get into the question of whether or not capital punishment brings closure to victims' families. There are a lot of issues here, but I've ranted enough for today. 3:16:23 PM    Let's hear it. []