Terminated

0

Labels:

The most high-profile execution in the last few years took place today at 12:01 AM, Pacific time. It has given me reason to once again strongly consider and internally defend my position on the death penalty. I'd like to share with you my thoughts.

Stanley "Tookie" Williams was a thug. He founded the Crips street gang. I don't question that, at the time of his arrest and conviction, he was a real prick. A bad dude. I don't know enough about his case to say convincingly that he was innocent of the murder charges that killed him today. I do know that there were no witnesses or informants in his case that didn't get some sort of an incentive deal from the prosecution. That makes me question the results.

Whether he killed anyone or not, however, the state has no place killing him. I have reasons for feeling this way that are completely independent of his guilt or innocence.
  1. It's more expensive, from beginning to end, to execute someone instead of imprisoning him for life. Conservatives should respect this, since money is one of the few non-English languages they speak.

  2. It's not a deterrent. States that do not have the death penalty have lower than average murder rates, and states with the death penalty have higher than average murder rates. Again, law-and-order conservatives should respect the efficacy of true "life imprisonment" versus a politically controversial form of punishment that doesn't appear to work outside of snuffing someone out.

  3. For religious folks, there are no major religions that uniformly support the death penalty (the link I've provided says that the Church of Latter-Day Saints supports retention of the death penalty, but their own Standing Council says otherwise). And don't even talk to me about the death penalty if you oppose legalized abortion.

  4. It's a frightening expression of the power and position of the government. If the mother of a murdered child and the person who killed that child are left alone in a room, and the mother kills that person out of rage and a sense of vengeance, I can't fault that. I have no way of understanding the need for balance that is born out of losing a loved one to a capital crime; it's never happened to me. But for the State to say, "don't worry, we'll take care of him for you" is just plain creepy. Hot-blooded vengeance perpretated by a survivor is understandable, if not justifiable. Cold-blooded execution perpetrated by the State on behalf of that survivor is bloodlust, period.

  5. (this could be 4A) It doesn't make sense. Killing someone who killed someone else is about as restorative as giving a recovering alcoholic a shot of whiskey to ease the withdrawal symptoms.

So there you go. Yes, there's a legislative allowance for execution, but there is also an legislative allowance for clemency. A majority of felony convictions do not rely on DNA evidence, and many have no DNA evidence component at all. Clemency as a policy must have respect for reasons other than DNA clarification in determining when it will be applied. That includes personal or spiritual betterment, and whether you think Stanley Williams was sincere in his anti-gang efforts later in life, he was still saying the words. He still wrote books telling kids not to get into gangs, and kids are only going to read the words, not ask their parents if he's trying to manipulate the appeals court in the process.

We, the citizens of the United States, deserve better than to have our government execute convicted men and women on our behalf. We deserve the ability to correct the mistakes of our judicial system when they occur, and once a person is dead, we all have to live with it if we're wrong.

The day Mike Sherman saved his job

3

Labels:

Last night, the Green Bay Packers (my team of choice, in case you didn't see where I'm from) defeated the Detroit Lions in a game replete with...well, with no real meaning outside those two cities. Of course, it only makes sense that it was a nationally televised game.

It was a pretty good game for the Packers, in a season full of last minute letdowns. The whole unit operated pretty efficiently, and no one made any really boneheaded decisions. It was one such decision, or so it appeared initially, that allowed Packers coach Mike Sherman to resuce his job from the jaws of failed expectations.

Green Bay had been pinned to their own one yard line (for you non-football fans, this is not good) late in the game, and attempted a running play out of a less-than-advisable formation. The running back, Samkon Gado (who is steadily turning into a GB fan favorite), took the ball and got stonewalled about 3 yards deep in his own endzone (again, not good). If tackled, he would be giving Detroit 2 points, and thus a 2-point lead.

Instead, he put the ball on the ground. Fumbled. Dropped it. In the endzone.

Except, instead of staying in the endzone and being picked up by a Detroit player, the ball popped forward to the 1 or 2 yard line, where another Packer fell on it. Penalty flags flew. It was bedlam, I tell you, bedlam.

There were two penalties called on the play:

  1. Intentional grounding on Green Bay, since it was technically a forward pass (it looked like Gado fumbled intentionally to prevent a safety).
  2. Holding on Green Bay, which would also result in a de facto safety, since it occurred in the endzone. Detroit declined the holding penalty, and accepted the intentional grounding penalty. 15-13 in favor of Detroit, with time running out.

Then something really strange happened. Mike Sherman started thinking, really hard.

Sherman called the officials to the sideline. Confusion ensued in the broadcast booth, because there was nothing Sherman could officially challenge. With either call, the result was 2 points for Detroit. The officials broke their huddle, the head referee came to the center of the field, and with a few brief words, he announced that Mike Sherman would be keeping his job next year.

Okay, not really. But he announced, to the shock of...well, pretty much everyone, that the "fumble"/forward pass by Gado was not intentional grounding, because he was outside of the tackles, the ball landed past the line of scrimmage, and was in the direction of an eligible receiver (the fellow who landed on the ball). No penalty.

That left the holding penalty that Detroit had declined. The referee then announced that the holding penalty occurred just outside of the endzone, and therefore would not result in a safety, merely a miniscule loss of yardage.

13-13. Tied up with time running out.

The Packers got out of the shadow of their own endzone, but ended up giving up the ball anyway. But Detroit never scored again in regulation, and Green Bay scored on their first overtime possession, thereby winning the game.

If all this sounds really arcane and bizarre, it was. And that, kids, is why Mike Sherman--despite the 3-10 record this year--will be back as head coach next season. Because he dug that deep to find a way to take 2 points off the board, and keep it tied up. He gave his team the win, and saved his job, because he combined faith, intelligence, and desperation in a game that doesn't mean anything to anyone outside of Michigan and Wisconsin.

Post script: The holding penalty really probably did happen in the endzone. But the referees changed their own minds, and the Packers can't be held responsible for accepting their decision. Plus, it's about damn time something went Green Bay's way this year.

And now, arguing for the oppostion...

0

Labels: ,

The state of Kansas has been making a fair ass of itself lately by mandating the inclusion of "intelligent design" subject matter in science classes. You can believe what you want, and you can have all the faith you feel you need; this is America, and that is your right. But religion isn't science. Faith does not imply fact. Faith, actually, flourishes in a realm completely separate from fact; faith is acceptance of an idea with no proof or solid evidence. That's what makes faith so powerful and comforting to those who have it.

The horribly named, intentionally misleading "intelligent design" (or ID) argues that life is too complex to have developed haphazardly via evolution. "Irreducibly complex" is the 25-cent phrase. It means that if you consider the eyeball, there's no way it could have developed slowly over time because to remove one small component of it makes it completely useless as an eyeball.

This is a bad argument, and scientifically disproven by a number of actual professionals in the field (such as The Digital Evolution Laboratory at Michigan State University). I'm not here to break it down in detail. I want to highlight the self-defeating behavior of a couple of ID-ers from Kansas.

Paul Mirecki, a professor at the University of Kansas, had planned on introducing a class this coming semester entitled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Other Religious Mythologies." This was done in response to the state school board shoehorning ID into science curricula. Now, this is a smart-alecky thing to do on Mirecki's part. I don't deny that. But the offense taken to the terminology indicates that proponents of ID know (somewhere in their heart of hearts) that ID is a religious topic, not a scientific one. When it gets put in the Religious Studies department, they get all worked up and make the silly claim that it's an insult to call ID "religion."

Prof. Mirecki decided, after some bad press locally, to withdraw the course from the spring timetable. It's his prerogative; I would have liked to take that class, but it's up to him as the professor to offer or pull the course. And you would think, short of some diehards who want to argue about it, that this would put the matter to bed. There were, however, at least two diehards who really wanted to pick a fight about it.

Mirecki was treated and released from Lawrence (Kansas) Memorial Hospital late on Monday, after being accosted by two men and beaten along the roadside. The men tailgated his car early on Monday morning, and after Mirecki pulled over to let them pass, they pulled up behind him and got out of the truck. He (foolishly, to his own admission) followed suit, and was promptly beaten about the head, face and shoulders. His account indicates that they knew who he was, and shouted something accusatory about his previous course offerings.

So, what, they were defending their turf? Trying to show dominance?

Mirecki should be glad he still has both nuts.

Way to go, ID. You've attracted quite a following.