Death Penalty
It would probably be a good idea to read the section about "crime" before you read about this issue. If you already did you might remember that I discussed the two competing philosophies concerning how to deal with those who choose to commit crimes. The first philosophy is known as "tough on crime". The second philosophy we call "soft on crime".
Both philosophies have their advantages and disadvantages. When it comes to which philosophy is better for an America that is safer for the "innocent" I choose the "tough on crime" philosophy. It errors on the side of the "innocent", while the "soft on crime" philosophy tends to error on the side of the "guilty". Besides that our founding fathers chose the "tough on crime" philosophy because it works in the real world. If it was good enough for them it is good enough for us. Along with the "tough on crime" philosophy comes the death penalty that our founding fathers used as a deterrent to crime.
Our founding fathers used the death penalty on certain occasions to deal with certain types of guilty criminals. That's why I personally think that there is a place for the death penalty. I believe that it is an effective deterrent against crime - if used properly. What does that mean? It means that we are using it today in a manner that doesn't serve as a good enough deterrent. It's not working effectively because it's not being used properly. The way that it is being administered these days gives ammunition to those who oppose it because it is not working as it should.
The death penalty needs to be used properly to act as a deterrent to crime. Otherwise we are wasting our time. This is very important. The power of the death penalty comes from the idea that justice is to be served swiftly. Currently the guilty death row inmates are kept alive for many years for one reason or another. The slow administration of justice halts the effectiveness of the death penalty. It also acts as a knife being slowly twisted in the backs of the innocent victim's family (if the innocent victim was killed by the criminal) who patiently wait for justice to be administered.
A criminal lawyer could tell you why it is taking 10 or 15 years to enact the death penalty on those who have received that sentence. I personally don't get it. Just because we have an appeal process doesn't mean that the trial process should take so long. This problem needs to be investigated (by a neutral party) to see why. If we are going to use the death penalty as a deterrent to crime we will need to find a way to administer this punishment much more swiftly. That's part of using the death penalty properly.
The other mistake that we are making is that we have convinced all of society, including criminals and potential criminals, that the death penalty is administered very gently and with little pain. The big concern that harsh death penalty methods are "cruel and unusual" punishment has everyone thinking that the authorities have made it as easy as possible for the person being executed. People are convinced that it's just like going to sleep. Now whether that actually happens or not is beside the point. The criminals think that it is painless and that's what is important. That's not much of a deterrent. In fact, it appeals to many who have a death wish. Society in general, and criminals in particular, need to clearly understand that the death penalty is a horrific experience. It's something they don't want.
As for the "painless" death that is administered through the needle, we are finding that this is not the case at all. From what I have read it takes 15 minutes or so for the poor soul to pass. It can be a much longer torture if not done properly. It would be much more humane and much quicker if the guilty criminal was hung by the rope, like it used to be. The whole process would be much, much cheaper for the taxpayers too. One $5.00 nylon rope could be reused over and over. As a matter of fact, I bet that the U.S. government has one just sitting around waiting to be put to good use. So why not use this alternative "old fashioned" method which is not only cheaper for the taxpayers (or free) but also brings about death without as much suffering? Isn't that what our founding fathers would want?
I think that a lot of soft hearted American Taxpayers don't like the death penalty because of the possibility of putting an innocent man to death. In this world we are prone to make mistakes. Humans are very good at making mistakes in case you haven't noticed. Accidentally putting an innocent person to death is not good, but it is bound to happen in this imperfect world. Since we can't be 100% sure of the guilt of the criminal in a lot of cases the death penalty becomes an object of question. That's understandable.
I would like to think that we could be 100% sure on every death penalty case but I don't see that as a possibility. Even DNA testing is not considered to be 100% perfect. Nor are the new computerized polygraph tests (usually called lie detector tests) even though it is said that they approach 100% accuracy. So in this imperfect world where none of us is all knowing, I wouldn't count on seeing 100% accuracy in anything concerning the criminal justice system. But that doesn't stop us from passing sentence on those who we believe to be guilty of lesser crimes and punishing them accordingly. The death penalty should not be an exception to the rule.
Our founding fathers knew that they weren't going to be 100% correct in this regard either. Nevertheless, they understood the importance of using their brain, their discernment and their common sense to conclude who was guilty and who was innocent. Aren't we capable of doing the same? I think that the solution is to do the best we can, be as honest as we can, and live with the results. There are always plenty of people involved in the criminal justice process and safeguards along the way to make sure that justice is being done to the accused criminal. Those who came before us made sure of that. We just have to do the best that we can using the brains that God gave us - along with the latest technology that will help insure the best possibility of a proper outcome.
I've always wondered if a number of polygraph tests given to an accused criminal under varying circumstances and given during different times of the day over a month long period would increase the accuracy. Would a polygraph test repeated 30 times over the course of a month by various technicians and under varying circumstances be more accurate than one single test? I don't know. But if it would increase the accuracy, we ought to know that and use it to the best of our ability to insure that all individuals accused of crimes get a fair chance at justice.
If we could devise a process like that which would insure a 97% accuracy rating (for example) I would guess that most Americans would be satisfied with that. Especially since DNA testing, with a comparable rating, is so highly regarded and accepted in society. Making the polygraph test admissible in a court of law would just be a matter of legislating it. Just think of the time and money that this process would save the taxpayers. This could reduce the whole process to months instead of years. This would free up the courts for other purposes.
Thanks to technology we can be at least somewhat more accurate than our founding fathers. Hence, we should not be afraid to administer the death penalty when we think it would be a good deterrent to crime. The question then comes up concerning which crimes it should be reserved for. The answer to this varies greatly among American Taxpayers. Let me give you my view of who it should be used for.
I believe that the death penalty should be reserved for the worst of criminals. In my book that would include murderers, rapists and child molesters. There might be others under certain circumstances but none are coming to mind at the present. You get my point - I'm talking about the worst of criminals.
The criminal that tops my list would be the religious leader who uses his position of religious authority to get to little boys and girls. These perverts know all about right and wrong and they also know exactly what they are doing. They are the best at patiently calculating the crime against those who have been entrusted to their care. They are the worst of the worst. This would include Catholic priests and leaders in Protestant churches (and all other types of religious leaders). The world should be rid of them.
Since the death penalty is such a controversial issue and hasn't been addressed nationally for a long time I think it would be best to let the American Taxpayers address this issue using the "Meet and Vote" program. This way the people could get the opportunity to make the decision for themselves. My views may not align with what the people want. My views may be too harsh and old fashioned. And since my administration will have the reputation for returning the decision making back to the people, the "Meet and Vote" process will work nicely to bring the will of the people to the forefront on this important "death penalty" issue.
During these nationally televised meetings we all will have an opportunity to hear the experts on the subject. That will include those policemen who live and breath the criminal justice system. Death penalty advocates will be allowed to give their views as will those who oppose it. Your legislators will give their advise. The American Polygraph Association could even give us accurate information about whether polygraph tests should be used in a court of law. I'm especially curious whether a battery of the new computer polygraph tests, as mentioned above, would be accurate for our purposes.
The direction that the American Taxpayers want to go will be the direction that our nation will take. That's about the most fair way that I can think of to deal with this issue. But I do think that it needs to be revisited since the American Taxpayers are not happy with all of the criminals running loose in society.
[To better understand the "Meet and Vote" program, see Index 1 and click on "Meet and Vote" program. You may also want to see "Crime" in Index 2 for a more complete understanding of my views about restoring law and order in our society.]
| INDEX 1 - AGENDA | INDEX 2 - ISSUES |
