Well, the jury has decided in the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and they have given him the death penalty http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-death-sentence.html?_r=0. I have previously said I do not believe in the death penalty, and I still do not believe in the death penalty.
In a way, I do not blame the jurors. They were given the opportunity, in the selection process, to let it be known if they were prepared to find for the death penalty. They made their choice then, to be on the jury. And from what I have heard of the way the law is written, they were compelled to follow the letter of the law which lead to this decision. That is what jurors are supposed to do.
I have heard the reactions of some of the victims and survivors who say now they can move forward with their lives. I am thankful for them that that will be possible. I wonder if it will. The reality is that there will be years of appeals, and I suspect that will continue to be a burden on the victims and survivors. And, I cannot imagine the haunt to my psyche that I knowingly wanted someone killed would provide. It is something beyond me to imagine.
I suspect, in a way, that Tsarnaev went into his mission thinking that there was a possibility that he might die, so maybe the result is not much of a surprise to him. I am still concerned that this will make him a martyr to the terrorist movement. And, if it becomes known someone can come to the United States and become a martyr, does this make us more of a target?
Mostly, I am just sad that this country still allows the death penalty, which I still think, no matter what kind of due process is used, is cruel and inhumane.
Showing posts with label death penalty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death penalty. Show all posts
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Boston Marathon Bomber
I would not have qualified for the jury at the trial of the Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. I do not know how objective I would have been about his innocence or guilt, although his defense team admitted he was involved in the bombing. Of course, the defense is insisting that Dzhokhar's older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev is to blame for corrupting his younger brother, which they claim is a mitigating circumstance.
I have not heard all of the evidence, nor all of the testimony in the trial. I will tell you, though, that I would not find in favor of the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, if he were found guilty. Well, of course not. I am never in favor of the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crime. I just do not believe that a panel of 12 jurors have that power any more than one person has the power to determine that someone else should die, due process or not. And, two wrongs do not make a right. And certainly, I do not believe that two brothers have the right to kill or maim many innocent people, but with all of that said, I cannot take it upon myself to say that those persons should die at the hand of other persons. I do believe that they should die when God deems they should die.
But there is a more serious consideration regarding the imposition of the death penalty on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. And, I am surprised that this has not been discussed in public, in the media. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is condemned to death for his part in the Boston Marathon bombing, he has the potential for becoming a MARTYR, a HERO, for the fanatical Islamic fringe.
I do not believe that all people of the Islamic faith are fanatically violent against the Western World, or non-Islams. Heck, even amongst themselves the people of the Islamic faith cannot unite: The Shi'ite and Sunni Islams are in opposition to each other. So why would we think that either extreme faction could reconcile with Christians or Hebrews. Well, of course, we would not think so, ifwe were reasonable people. Although we know that the moderate, calm, open-minded people of the Islamic faith are able to function in harmony with peoples of other faiths.
A colleague commented, shortly after 9/11/2001, that this part of the world (the Middle East) has been at war amongst itself for 2000 years or more. Why is it we think our (the United States) intervention will change that. It will not.
The change will only occur when the various factions: the Sunni, the Shi'ite, the Palestinians, the Israelis, El-Qaida, the Taliban, ISIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant and who knows who else, come to some understanding, amongst themselves, and then come to an understanding with the other religions of the world. Although it would be nice to think that the confluence of these peoples would occur sooner than later, the likelihood is that it will not occur, or if it does, it will occur with some key participants missing. I doubt it will occur in my life time.
I have not heard all of the evidence, nor all of the testimony in the trial. I will tell you, though, that I would not find in favor of the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, if he were found guilty. Well, of course not. I am never in favor of the death penalty, no matter how heinous the crime. I just do not believe that a panel of 12 jurors have that power any more than one person has the power to determine that someone else should die, due process or not. And, two wrongs do not make a right. And certainly, I do not believe that two brothers have the right to kill or maim many innocent people, but with all of that said, I cannot take it upon myself to say that those persons should die at the hand of other persons. I do believe that they should die when God deems they should die.
But there is a more serious consideration regarding the imposition of the death penalty on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. And, I am surprised that this has not been discussed in public, in the media. If Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is condemned to death for his part in the Boston Marathon bombing, he has the potential for becoming a MARTYR, a HERO, for the fanatical Islamic fringe.
I do not believe that all people of the Islamic faith are fanatically violent against the Western World, or non-Islams. Heck, even amongst themselves the people of the Islamic faith cannot unite: The Shi'ite and Sunni Islams are in opposition to each other. So why would we think that either extreme faction could reconcile with Christians or Hebrews. Well, of course, we would not think so, ifwe were reasonable people. Although we know that the moderate, calm, open-minded people of the Islamic faith are able to function in harmony with peoples of other faiths.
A colleague commented, shortly after 9/11/2001, that this part of the world (the Middle East) has been at war amongst itself for 2000 years or more. Why is it we think our (the United States) intervention will change that. It will not.
The change will only occur when the various factions: the Sunni, the Shi'ite, the Palestinians, the Israelis, El-Qaida, the Taliban, ISIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant and who knows who else, come to some understanding, amongst themselves, and then come to an understanding with the other religions of the world. Although it would be nice to think that the confluence of these peoples would occur sooner than later, the likelihood is that it will not occur, or if it does, it will occur with some key participants missing. I doubt it will occur in my life time.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Why Are We Talking About Killing?
If you think of it, the death penalty is nothing but killing. I understand that it is legally sanctioned in many states, including Texas where I live. But we do not call it killing. We call it "the death penalty" as a euphemism. People who are in favor of the death penalty seem to think it is okay, because to get to the point where someone has been convicted of a crime, they go through due process, and are convicted in court, or plead guilty of a crime. I think, no matter how heinous the crime, I do not have the right to be the cause of someone else's death.
So, I was appalled this week when I heard the NPR story http://www.npr.org/2015/03/11/392375383/states-scramble-to-deal-with-shortages-of-execution-drugs about states that are running out of the drug they use for administering the death penalty. This story reflects that the states are authorizing alternative methods for the death penalty, if drugs are not available. I am flabbergasted by this: there is talk of using electric chairs or a firing squad. This is brutal. This is inhumane. This is killing.
Why are we talking about extending the death penalty? Why are we not talking about eliminating it, as many other countries have, and are putting pressure on this country to do so.
For a nation that prides itself for due process and respect for human rights, we really stink: Think about slavery. Think about the War Between the States that resulted in so many deaths. Think about the treatment of the Native Americans. Think about child labor. Think about apartheid and segregation in this country under the Jim Crow laws. Think about the struggles to overcome discrimination. Think about women's suffrage. Think about farm labor struggles. Think about voting rights. Think about the prisoners at Guantanamo. Think about the current unrest in many cities because of racial profiling and the over targeting of minorities.
As a nation, we do not do so good in the arena of human rights. And this discussion about alternative methods of administering the death penalty is just one example.
So, I was appalled this week when I heard the NPR story http://www.npr.org/2015/03/11/392375383/states-scramble-to-deal-with-shortages-of-execution-drugs about states that are running out of the drug they use for administering the death penalty. This story reflects that the states are authorizing alternative methods for the death penalty, if drugs are not available. I am flabbergasted by this: there is talk of using electric chairs or a firing squad. This is brutal. This is inhumane. This is killing.
Why are we talking about extending the death penalty? Why are we not talking about eliminating it, as many other countries have, and are putting pressure on this country to do so.
For a nation that prides itself for due process and respect for human rights, we really stink: Think about slavery. Think about the War Between the States that resulted in so many deaths. Think about the treatment of the Native Americans. Think about child labor. Think about apartheid and segregation in this country under the Jim Crow laws. Think about the struggles to overcome discrimination. Think about women's suffrage. Think about farm labor struggles. Think about voting rights. Think about the prisoners at Guantanamo. Think about the current unrest in many cities because of racial profiling and the over targeting of minorities.
As a nation, we do not do so good in the arena of human rights. And this discussion about alternative methods of administering the death penalty is just one example.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
The Death Penalty
Since the botched execution in Oklahoma http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/oklahoma-botched-execution/, the death penalty has been in the news again.
Most recently, the State of Tennessee has resurrected the use of the electric chair http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tennessee-brings-back-electric-chair/
Really? The electric chair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair The common myth is that Edison invented the electric chair to prove the dangers of alternating current.
The history of the electric chair includes that it has been considered cruel and unusual punishment.
I would consider it cruel and unusual punishment.
I am wondering if the various political and governmental organizations don't get it. Drug companies do not want to participate in executions. So they are discontinuing their production of drugs that are used for these executions.
Doesn't that raise a red flag to politicians and government officials? If drug companies do not want to participate in government sanctioned executions, wouldn't you think that the governments involved would re-think these executions.
I am appalled that these governments are trying to circumvent these means of executions, and trying to find other ways to conduct lethal executions of criminals.
How sad.
Most recently, the State of Tennessee has resurrected the use of the electric chair http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tennessee-brings-back-electric-chair/
Really? The electric chair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chair The common myth is that Edison invented the electric chair to prove the dangers of alternating current.
The history of the electric chair includes that it has been considered cruel and unusual punishment.
I would consider it cruel and unusual punishment.
I am wondering if the various political and governmental organizations don't get it. Drug companies do not want to participate in executions. So they are discontinuing their production of drugs that are used for these executions.
Doesn't that raise a red flag to politicians and government officials? If drug companies do not want to participate in government sanctioned executions, wouldn't you think that the governments involved would re-think these executions.
I am appalled that these governments are trying to circumvent these means of executions, and trying to find other ways to conduct lethal executions of criminals.
How sad.
Thursday, May 1, 2014
The Death Penalty
I am against the death penalty. I will discuss that further along in this blog. I live in a state, Texas, that executes as many if not more people than any other state in the United States. I work as a contract worker for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). I am a social worker. I work for Texas Tech Health Sciences Center, which has a contract through Correctional Managed Health Care to provide services to TDCJ.
I understand that TDCJ is charged with housing offenders on death row, and executing their death sentences as prescribed by law. I understand that TDCJ is charged with these tasks. I have understand that TDCJ has to follow the law. I have every moral objection to the law..
I have an objection with the legislators and voters of the State of Texas who have voted in and continue to support the death penalty.
There are many reasons I oppose the death penalty. One is the very possibility of what happened in Oklahoma on April 29, 2014 http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/308377785/botched-oklahoma-execution-mobilizes-death-penalty-opponents. The drugs did not act as they should have, and even the offender said that something was wrong. He later died of a heart attack, after an agonizing time of reaction to the drugs.
Over the past few years, drug companies who make the drugs used in the lethal injections for death penalties have decreased or eliminated the availability of these drugs. While I find that admirable, I am aware that these same drug companies make unimaginable profits on drugs that are essential to the lives of many people, sometimes pricing those drugs out of reach of the patients who need them, thus giving them death penalties. I know that there are some assistance programs from drug companies who help people who cannot afford their medications. But this is very complex and requires some help to negotiate the system. But, it is there
But this is just one of my objections to the death penalty.
My objection to the death penalty is on a larger, wider, moral scale. I think that no matter how heinous the crime, how despicable the person, how habitual the offense, it is not up to me or any other human being to decide that this person should die. I find "playing god" offensive to my sense of what is moral and ethical.
I think that I can say this with some sense of equanimity. I have dealt with people who are murderers, child rapers, abusers of the elderly, arsonists, animal abusers. No matter how despicable their crimes were, or how despicable their behaviors are, I am reminded over and over again that the offenders are still human beings. My faith, my belief in humanity, my social work code of ethics reminded me that they are human beings who deserve dignity and respect in my professional interaction with them.
It is not up to me to decide if this person lives or dies. That is beyond my purview as a social worker in my current job position. I know I could not serve on a jury panel in a trial in which the defendant faced the death penalty.
Years ago, I was doing groups at my place of employment, and a very controversial execution was in the news. The offenders in this group wanted to talk about that, and not the topic of the day, so we discussed the execution. The general consensus of these offenders was that it is not up to the state or the court system to decide the death penalty. It should be up to the offender. They were in agreement that some crimes should be punished by life and by life without parole. But they said it should be up to the offender if he wanted his life ended by a death penalty. They were not talking about suicidality. They were talking about taking a choice of death over life long punishment.
Frankly, I would have a better time accepting that option than the state mandated death penalty, imposed by judge or jury. I have met offenders who know that because of the length of their sentence, they will never leave prison alive. That is a depressing and discouraging acknowledgement of their life circumstances. It is understandable that they are depressed, and see no way out of their depression.
My job is to help them to find what their role of life in prison is: to help younger offenders deal with accepting or adjusting to incarceration; to help other lifers find their place and role in prison; to find their peace and place with their maker, to improve themselves as persons so they rise above the person who committed their crime. I don't know. There may be other roles these offenders might have to find or develop to address their reason for life in prison.
I am so inadequate at helping a long term or life term offender find his role for his life in prison. I cannot define it for him. I can think of things that might help: getting involved in prison ministries; teaching other offenders, especially in terms of good decision making and understanding consequences; peer support of offenders; changing thinking to be compliant with accepted social rules.
The whole point of this blog is that we, as human beings have no right to decide that someone should suffer the death penalty, no matter how heinous his crime, no matter how "humane" the administration of the means of death.
Life is sacred. Life a miracle. The giving and taking of life is a function beyond my capacity as a human being. It is a function of my higher power, my God, my maker. It is not a function held by man, although mankind acts as if it is.
I understand that TDCJ is charged with housing offenders on death row, and executing their death sentences as prescribed by law. I understand that TDCJ is charged with these tasks. I have understand that TDCJ has to follow the law. I have every moral objection to the law..
I have an objection with the legislators and voters of the State of Texas who have voted in and continue to support the death penalty.
There are many reasons I oppose the death penalty. One is the very possibility of what happened in Oklahoma on April 29, 2014 http://www.npr.org/2014/04/30/308377785/botched-oklahoma-execution-mobilizes-death-penalty-opponents. The drugs did not act as they should have, and even the offender said that something was wrong. He later died of a heart attack, after an agonizing time of reaction to the drugs.
Over the past few years, drug companies who make the drugs used in the lethal injections for death penalties have decreased or eliminated the availability of these drugs. While I find that admirable, I am aware that these same drug companies make unimaginable profits on drugs that are essential to the lives of many people, sometimes pricing those drugs out of reach of the patients who need them, thus giving them death penalties. I know that there are some assistance programs from drug companies who help people who cannot afford their medications. But this is very complex and requires some help to negotiate the system. But, it is there
But this is just one of my objections to the death penalty.
My objection to the death penalty is on a larger, wider, moral scale. I think that no matter how heinous the crime, how despicable the person, how habitual the offense, it is not up to me or any other human being to decide that this person should die. I find "playing god" offensive to my sense of what is moral and ethical.
I think that I can say this with some sense of equanimity. I have dealt with people who are murderers, child rapers, abusers of the elderly, arsonists, animal abusers. No matter how despicable their crimes were, or how despicable their behaviors are, I am reminded over and over again that the offenders are still human beings. My faith, my belief in humanity, my social work code of ethics reminded me that they are human beings who deserve dignity and respect in my professional interaction with them.
It is not up to me to decide if this person lives or dies. That is beyond my purview as a social worker in my current job position. I know I could not serve on a jury panel in a trial in which the defendant faced the death penalty.
Years ago, I was doing groups at my place of employment, and a very controversial execution was in the news. The offenders in this group wanted to talk about that, and not the topic of the day, so we discussed the execution. The general consensus of these offenders was that it is not up to the state or the court system to decide the death penalty. It should be up to the offender. They were in agreement that some crimes should be punished by life and by life without parole. But they said it should be up to the offender if he wanted his life ended by a death penalty. They were not talking about suicidality. They were talking about taking a choice of death over life long punishment.
Frankly, I would have a better time accepting that option than the state mandated death penalty, imposed by judge or jury. I have met offenders who know that because of the length of their sentence, they will never leave prison alive. That is a depressing and discouraging acknowledgement of their life circumstances. It is understandable that they are depressed, and see no way out of their depression.
My job is to help them to find what their role of life in prison is: to help younger offenders deal with accepting or adjusting to incarceration; to help other lifers find their place and role in prison; to find their peace and place with their maker, to improve themselves as persons so they rise above the person who committed their crime. I don't know. There may be other roles these offenders might have to find or develop to address their reason for life in prison.
I am so inadequate at helping a long term or life term offender find his role for his life in prison. I cannot define it for him. I can think of things that might help: getting involved in prison ministries; teaching other offenders, especially in terms of good decision making and understanding consequences; peer support of offenders; changing thinking to be compliant with accepted social rules.
The whole point of this blog is that we, as human beings have no right to decide that someone should suffer the death penalty, no matter how heinous his crime, no matter how "humane" the administration of the means of death.
Life is sacred. Life a miracle. The giving and taking of life is a function beyond my capacity as a human being. It is a function of my higher power, my God, my maker. It is not a function held by man, although mankind acts as if it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)