[Previous entry: "Heidi Yum-Yum Gluck"] [Next entry: "E. Pluribus Eubanks"]

12/29/2005: "Rosey and Dewey Butt"

Before I get to the latest mini-debunking kit, I'd like to take a moment
to focus on that noblest of media: television.

Last night, on Larry King Live, famous and inaccurate psychic Sylvia
Browne appeared on a panel with two other psychics to debate two skeptics
(one of whom was a Rabbi). I'd always wanted to call into a talk show and ask
a psychic to contact my dead brother. Since I've never had a brother, I
always assumed that this would be a great source of amusement until
none-other-than James Randi, himself, explained to me that, as soon as
I revealed that I never had a brother, the psychic would inevitably
counter with some crazy cover story about how some malevolent spirit
had contacted them pretending to be my brother. Plan B was to
call and ask Sylvia why she wasn't able to predict that eating fifty
pounds of Ben & Jerry's would turn her into a reasonable facsimile of
a lowland gorilla.

Finally, I settled on Plan C which consisted of drinking several glasses
of wine while mocking the "people" who did call in: who were, by the
way, all pro-psychic.

Speaking of television shows which are composed mostly of idiots, I highly
recommend that you check out no-more-than fifteen minutes of Moral Court.
The show is basically a variation on all of those other daytime courtroom
shows (Judge Judy, Judge, Joe Brown, The People's Court, Judge Hatchet,
Divorce Court, etc.) in which people facing complex moral dilemmas, such
as "Should I sell me baby to Satanists?" and "What color should I paint
my Meth lab?" have the concepts of Right and Wrong explained to them very,
very, slowly. Up next: Basic Hygiene Court.

OK, now that I've gotten that off my chest, let's debunk some shit!

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

One of my all-time favorite headlines from the Onion is Sacco, Vanzetti
Executed For Murder, Italian Descent. I was thinking about
that headline, recently, when I found myself debating the death penalty
with a pro-capitol punishment, Italian-American. When I asked him how,
considering what had happened to Sacco and Venzetti, he, of all people, could be
in favor of the government putting citizens to death, he replied
simply with "Who?" Clearly, he hadn't been doing his homework.

I, on the other hand, have been doing mine. My opposition to capitol
punishment is, unlike many other people's, not based on any moral argument, but
on the facts that I've managed to glean during my brief sobriety which
took place in the early nineties. I should also mention that even if
Sylvia Browne were facing death-by-chocolate, I (along with Greenpeace
who never like to see a whale hunted down) would oppose her execution.


Death Penalty Mini-Debunking Kit

1. The Death Penalty does not deter crime. Murders are either
crimes of passion or they're premeditated. Agreed? I think we can also
agree that, except in crappy Sci-Fi films starring sofa-leaping
Scientologists, it's impossible to prevent crimes of passion. As for
premeditated crimes, well, the individuals who commit these crimes tend
to consider themselves to be too smart to get caught: otherwise they
wouldn't be out there pulling that drive-by shooting at two in the
afternoon in front of a local news crew, now would they?

2. The Death Penalty may actually lead to an increase in the murder
rate. Statistics seldom lie: the murder rate in non-death penalty
states has continually remained lower than in states which employ
execution; and, as number of people put to death has grown, the greater
this divide has become. In 1990, the murder rates between pro and non
death penalty states differed by 4%. By 2000, you stood a 35% higher
chance of getting killed in death penalty state than in a state without
the death penalty. In 2001 that number went up to 37% and dropped,
slightly, in 2002, to 36%. Of the twenty states with the highest murder
rates today, eighteen have the death penalty.

3. Most Western Democracies have abolished capitol punishment.
By continuing to hang on to this barbaric practice, the United States
finds itself in the company of such truly enlightened countries as China,
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Kuwait, Vietnam, Egypt, and Belarus
(where, I have it on good authority, all of the women look like Sylvia
Browne).

4. Blacks get to "ride the lighting" more than Whites. While Trevor
Boswell-Pennington IV is ten times more likely to get his WASPish skull
smashed in by Rakim Washington than vice-versa, and while fifty-seven
percent of the people on Death Row are White, Blacks are five times more
likely to be sentenced to death than Whites. Oh, and since 1977, 85% of
the murderers executed in Utah were convicted of killing a white person,
as opposed to only 11% who were executed for killing black persons
(where they found Blacks in Utah, I'll never know).

5. Poor people get to "ride the lighting" more than rich people.
It should come as a surprise to no one (well, maybe to Bill O'Reilly) that,
in the words of Justice William O. Douglas, "One searches our chronicles
in vain for the execution of any member of the affluent strata in this
society." 90 % of the people on death row couldn't afford to hire a
lawyer. Good luck with Mr. Court-Appointed Attorney, Carlos; you're gonna
need it.

6. Women rarely, if ever, get to ride "ride the lighting". Even
though women commit about 15% of the murders in America, they comprise
only 1% of the death row population. Since 1930, the USA (USA! USA!) has
only executed 33 women (none of whom were Sylvia Browne)

7. We have now sunk to the point where we're executing the mentally
retarded. Even though numerous studies have shown that and the
mentally impaired (as well as minors) are more vulnerable to suggestion
than any other segment of the population and, therefore, more likely to
make false confessions, the United States continues to sentence them to
death. Ricky Ray Rector, who was convicted of the 1979 rape and murder
of Pamela Moseley Carpenter, had an IQ of approximately 60: which means
that his reasoning capabilities were on par with that of a seven-year-old.
Ricky asked if he could save the dessert from his last meal so that he
could have it as a snack later…after his execution.

8. The Death Penalty is irreversible. Simply put: if you're
sentenced to Life for a murder, and you're later found to be innocent,
you can be released. You can't undo an execution. While the likelihood
of a mistake being made is incredibly low (roughly 0.33 of 1%), mistakes
do happen. We know of twenty-five people who were wrongfully executed
in America during the twentieth century.

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

OK, since I like to switch back-and-forth, debunking both the Left and
the Right, the next time we play this game, it'll be with Afrocentrism.

Replies: 23 Comments

on Thursday, December 29th, eric said

how dare you question how the government does things they can kill any mofo they want to because they are origional gangsta. Also don't forget they have the origional origional gangsta on their side and GOD supports only our government and nobody elses because we coo like that and we's knows that. Oh and whatever happened to the days where to men could fight to the death and have it be in honor. I think if 2 people agree to fight to the death that it should be legal.

on Friday, December 30th, MrStinky said

Since I'm an American, I'm too lazy and fat to look this up myself. I was just curious if the murder rate statistic from point #2 was based on the number of people killed or based on the % of population from that state.
Since Bush talks to god through Sylvia every night, I would think he'd be more in the "turn the other cheek" vein. I've always found it interesting that these bible-thumping Christians are always so quick to kill others that do not fit into their mold (doesn't that go against one of their commandments?). And yet, us heathens, we seem to like the idea of preserving life. Strange.

on Friday, December 30th, Rodney said

Mr. Stinky (if that is your real name),

The number is based on a states homicide rate which is derived by dividing the states population by the number of murders.

Here's another fun fact about death penalty states vs. non death penalty states:

10 of the 12 states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average.

on Friday, December 30th, Brian said

Apart from points one and two, these arguments don't "debunk" the theory of the death penalty, but rather the application of the death penalty in the US. Clearly there is a major problem with the way the judical system works in this country, but that applies to short jail sentences as much as it does to death sentences. If they fix the system, the death penalty, if applied fairly and accurately, is not a bad thing. There are certain people that have done things that are so horrible that they no longer deserve to be living.

And the argument that other countries don't use the death penalty is a poor one. Since when do we make decisions based on what does or doesn't work in any other country? If all your friends were jumping off the Ben Franklin bridge, would you jump too?

on Friday, December 30th, MrStinky said

I'm sure this debate could go on forever, but my problem with the death penalty has always been - who are we to decide who should and shouldn't live? People are a "menace 2 society", so we lock them up. Fine. But, we don't know what's up with death, and I think it's pretty arrogant to think you can decide when a person should and shouldn't live.
As for jumping off a bridge, if something works somewhere else, wouldn't it just be a wise move to try to implement that when your own system isn't working? Unfortunately, the Republican way of thinking (my way or none at all - whether it's working or not) needs to stop, and it is okay to take a cue from other countries.

on Friday, December 30th, Rev. Wally said

Who is anyone to say someone doesn't deserve to live. Killing someone for killing someone else makes absolutely no sense. One murder is bad but the other is excused? I don't get it.

on Friday, December 30th, MrStinky said

And yes, Mr. Stinky is my real name. It plagued me as a child, but I revel it now, as everyone expects me to live up to my name (has cut down on my water bill, too).

on Friday, December 30th, Rodney said

"If all your friends were jumping off the Ben Franklin Bridge, would you jump too?"

Statistical, yes, I'd be more inclined to jump off the BF Bridge if several of my friends had: particularly if I and my friends were teenagers.

on Friday, December 30th, Brian said

Ha!
You have a point there.

I'm not saying the current system is right, because it is not, but the death penalty isn't the problem with it. If you fix the system, the problems presented in points 4-7 go away.

Furthermore, if we lock people up untill they die in prison, how is that any different/better then just eliminating them?

Hypothetically, if there were a way to determine without any possibility of being incorrect that someone did some horrible murder, say hijacked a bus full of 1st graders and skinned them alive, why would we want to keep that "person" alive, even in the confines of a prison?

on Friday, December 30th, SirAtededge said

I've got to question that .33% figure. As near as I can figure, Illinois wound up releasing (not commuting)17 of a death row population around 180 for a figure closer to 10%. That's because a bunch of law students had nothing better to do for a class project. I'm willing to bet that Florida and particularly Texas, where elected judges dish it out, are as bad or worse.

The death penalty has always been a way for demagogues to appear tough on crime without having to do much. Clinton was in some ways more nauseating about it than W.

As to Brian's point, I would only say that the reason that we restrain ourselves from executing even the most loathsome criminals is the same reason we don't skin them publicly, because killing as legal punishment is something we don't do.

on Friday, December 30th, MrStinky said

This might be part of my cruel nature, but, if someone had skinned a bus load of first graders, i'd want them to live with the guilt (if they can feel such a thing) of doing it. I think killing them is an easy way out for the murderer...

on Friday, December 30th, brian said

Do you really think that a person who is willing to do terrible things is going to have a problem with guilt?

Personally, if I were convicted, I would want to die rather then rot in prison for the rest of my life.

on Friday, December 30th, Gorilla Girl said

I think they should do away with the death penalty, and not because I think it's wrong to kill criminals (I couldn't care less). The chance of killing innocent people is certainly a problem. But in truth, if someone is guilty of a heinous crime, death is too good for them. They should be forced to rot in prison.

While I'm at it, the conservative and liberal ideas of prison as punishment or rehabilitation are not in society's best interest. Prison should be viewed as a way to protect society from dangerous people. Which is why murderers, rapists, and molesters should never be let out of jail (even if they "find God"), while drug offenders should never be in jail in the first place (at least not for having drugs). The former cannot be trusted; and the latter haven't hurt anyone, so why do we need to be protected from them.

on Saturday, December 31st, MrStinky said

Right. GorillaGirl said what I was trying to say. I think Death is too good (too easy) for these criminals. As brian says, if he were convicted, he'd rather die. That's why I'm saying we shouldn't kill the prisoners. Why make it easier on them?
For prisoners that "find God", I think they're probably more dangerous than those that don't (very open to suggestion).

on Saturday, December 31st, briannirvana said

hey your the one against cruel and unusual punisment. you fuckin liberals scum.
if i was in charge my first order of business would be to introduce public hangings and gibbotings.

on Saturday, December 31st, brian said

Keeping these people locked up for ever becomes a matter of storage. There is only so much room for broken things in my garage. Eventually I will have to start throwing some of the shit out. Why should it be any different when it comes to people? Why should we store broken people for their entire natural life? We as a society cannot trust them to be free, so why keep them around at all?

on Saturday, December 31st, SirAtededge said

The problem with that "warehouse" argument is that it eventually leads to the handicapped, retirees, and Fox News anchors. They just drag on the rest of us so there's no upside in keeping them around, as Silvio might say.

People either believe that society has a right to kill as retribution or they don't. I doubt anybody is going to be swayed by even by the eloquent arguments on this page.

My point is the high proportion of innocent people executed as evidenced by the Illinois reviews. Although there is an elaborate and automatic appeals process, the defendant has to prove judicial misconduct or introduce new fully exonerating evidence. You can't just introduce reasonable doubt once you've already been found guilty.

on Saturday, December 31st, the drunk mailman said

can i have ricky's dessert...

on Saturday, December 31st, brian said

But that is a flaw in the judicial system and not a flaw of the death penalty itself.

And no one is saying that the old, handicapped or retarted be killed. Just that people who CHOOSE to act in a way that requires them to be removed from society. They can't be let out ever, so why bother keeping them alive?

on Sunday, January 1st, briannirvana said

maybe instead of killing them we eat them.
still they cease to exist but they went for a good cause.
feeding the needy, im sure we can learn how to properly cook the torso and arms and legs.
let's eat!

on Sunday, January 1st, Kelsey said

I can definitely see both the pros and cons of the death penalty, but I tend to be swayed more towards the "against" side - I'm pretty uncomfortable with the government having the power to execute it's own citizens.

on Monday, January 2nd, jimbob said

Why shouldn't our government be able to execute it's own citizens? We travel the world to execute the citizens of other countries all the time (usually the brown people, though)

on Monday, January 2nd, Gorilla Girl said

You know, there would be a lot of free prison space if we legalized drugs and let the non-violent drug offenders out. Easily enough space to keep murderers, rapists, and even Fox News anchors locked away forever. Besides, if we stop giving prisoners extraordinary medical care, like heart and liver transplants, they will die soon enough to make room for more.